Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Trademarks

by io.github.pipeworx-io
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Get Trademark Documents

get_trademark_documents
Read-onlyIdempotent

Get the prosecution history (office actions, responses, etc.) for a trademark by serial number. Requires USPTO API key.

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": {
      "api_key": "your-trademarks-api-key",
      "serial_number": "97123456"
    },
    "name": "get_trademark_documents"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
api_keyNoUSPTO API key
serial_numberYesUSPTO serial number

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
statusNoCurrent status of the trademark
attorneyNoAttorney name if applicable
mark_textNoText or verbal element of the mark
owner_nameNoOwner/applicant name
filing_dateNoApplication filing date
status_dateNoDate of the current status
raw_availableNoWhether raw XML data was available
serial_numberNoUSPTO serial number
goods_servicesNoGoods and services description
registration_dateNoTrademark registration date
international_classNoInternational classification number
registration_numberNoTrademark registration number

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "attorney": {
+      "description": "Attorney name if applicable",
+      "type": [
+        "string",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "filing_date": {
+      "description": "Application filing date",
+      "type": [
+        "string",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "goods_services": {
+      "description": "Goods and services description",
+      "type": [
+        "string",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "international_class": {
+      "description": "International classification number",
+      "type": [
+        "string",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "mark_text": {
+      "description": "Text or verbal element of the mark",
+      "type": [
+        "string",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "owner_name": {
+      "description": "Owner/applicant name",
+      "type": [
+        "string",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "raw_available": {
+      "description": "Whether raw XML data was available",
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "registration_date": {
+      "description": "Trademark registration date",
+      "type": [
+        "string",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "registration_number": {
+      "description": "Trademark registration number",
+      "type": [
+        "string",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "serial_number": {
+      "description": "USPTO serial number",
+      "type": [
+        "string",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "status": {
+      "description": "Current status of the trademark",
+      "type": [
+        "string",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "status_date": {
+      "description": "Date of the current status",
+      "type": [
+        "string",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / examples
      Added value: +[
+  {
+    "api_key": "your-trademarks-api-key",
+    "serial_number": "97123456"
+  },
+  {
+    "serial_number": "90876543"
+  }
+]
  3. First observed

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds that an API key is required, which is a prerequisite. However, it does not disclose other behavioral traits like rate limits or pagination. The description does not contradict annotations.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is a single sentence that immediately states the action and resource, making it front-loaded and efficient. No extraneous information.

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

Completeness3/5

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

While an output schema exists and annotations cover safety, the description has a minor contradiction regarding the API key requirement (description says required, schema lists it as optional). It also lacks details on scope or pagination. Overall, it is functional but leaves some ambiguity.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100% with basic descriptions for both parameters. The description adds context about prosecution history but does not enhance parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description clearly states the tool retrieves prosecution history (office actions, responses) for a trademark by serial number, which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_trademark_by_serial and get_trademark_by_registration by focusing on documents rather than basic info.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description mentions the requirement for a USPTO API key but does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when basic trademark info is needed. No exclusions or selection criteria are given.

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

All Trademarks toolsInspect
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.

Resources