Patents

Get Patent Transactions

get_patent_transactions

Read-onlyIdempotent

Fetch the full USPTO prosecution/transaction history for one patent application — every dated event the Office recorded against the case (filings, mailings, fee payments, office actions, notices, the grant itself), newest first. This is a superset of the handful of events get_patent surfaces: use this tool when the question is about the PROSECUTION HISTORY itself (how many office actions, when was it mailed, when did examination start) rather than just the current status.

Example tool call

This call uses example arguments supplied in the tool’s input schema.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "limit": 5,
      "number": "17248024"
    },
    "name": "get_patent_transactions"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`limit`	No	Maximum number of events to return, newest first (default 50). The full history is usually under 100 events; a `note` in the response says when more exist than were returned.
`number`	Yes	US application number, digits only or formatted. Examples: "18926509", "16/123,456".
`_apiKey`	No	USPTO ODP API key. Get free at https://data.uspto.gov/myodp.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`total`	Yes
`events`	Yes
`source`	Yes
`returned`	Yes
`application_number`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 3, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds real value beyond them by disclosing result ordering (newest first), completeness behavior (the full history is usually under 100 events, and a `note` flags when more exist than returned), and that this is a superset of `get_patent` output. It stops short of describing rate limits or auth failure behavior, keeping it at 4 rather than 5.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose before the sibling comparison. It is efficient overall, though the emphasized caps and the slightly long parenthetical event list cost a bit of tightness.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return-value detail needn't be spelled out, and the description still flags the meaningful response trait (a `note` when results are truncated). Combined with full parameter coverage, an agent has enough to call this correctly; only minor operational detail is absent.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and both `limit` (default 50, newest first, note when truncated) and `number` (digits only or formatted, with examples) are already documented in the schema. The description adds essentially no parameter syntax or format detail beyond that, so the 3 baseline is correct.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a concrete verb and resource (fetch full USPTO prosecution/transaction history for one application) and enumerates the event types covered (filings, mailings, fee payments, office actions, notices, grant). It explicitly positions itself as a superset of `get_patent`, so an agent can distinguish it from that sibling without opening either schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives an explicit when-to-use rule: use this when the question is about the prosecution history itself (how many office actions, when mailed, when examination started) rather than current status. It names the alternative tool `get_patent` and the condition that selects it, leaving nothing to inference.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Patents tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.