Intangible Asset Valuation MCP Server

Intellectual Property

valuation_ip

Read-onlyIdempotent

Intellectual property: risk-adjusted patent value, trademark/brand value, copyright income value, and trade-secret value under secrecy risk. Method selects the formula. Use to value a specific IP right; patent weights projected cash flows by probability of success, trademark uses brand strength to set the royalty. For technology, software, data, and platform assets use valuation_technology; for customer and workforce assets use valuation_customer and valuation_human_capital. Per method: patent needs remaining_life + cash_flow_projections + probability_of_success + discount_rate (optional: comparable_license_rates); trademark needs revenue + profit_margin + brand_strength_index + discount_rate + useful_life (optional: brand_method); copyright needs projected_revenue + useful_life + discount_rate + royalty_rate; trade_secret needs development_cost + economic_life + competitive_advantage_period + discount_rate + secrecy_probability. cash_flow_projections for patent run over remaining_life. Only method is required; other parameters are method-dependent, so supply those named for the selected method and omit the rest (documented defaults apply where defined). Pure arithmetic: no I/O and no external calls, and numeric results are returned rounded to 2 decimals. Parameters belonging to other methods of this tool are accepted and ignored. Supplying an unknown method, or leaving unset a parameter that the chosen method requires, returns an error instead of a value.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`method`	Yes	Formula to apply. Options: patent = Risk-adjusted DCF over the patent's remaining life.; trademark = Brand value by relief-from-royalty or excess earnings.; copyright = PV of expected copyright royalty income.; trade_secret = Value under secrecy risk over the economic life.
`revenue`	No	Annual revenue attributable to the asset, in currency units.
`useful_life`	No	Useful life in years n.
`brand_method`	No	Trademark method: relief_from_royalty adjusts the royalty rate by brand strength; excess_earnings capitalizes excess earnings.
`royalty_rate`	No	Royalty rate as a decimal (0.05 = 5% of revenue).
`discount_rate`	No	Per-period discount rate as a decimal (0.10 = 10%).
`economic_life`	No	Economic life in years.
`profit_margin`	No	Profit margin as a decimal (0.20 = 20%).
`remaining_life`	No	Remaining legal/economic life of the patent in years.
`development_cost`	No	Development or acquisition cost, in currency units.
`projected_revenue`	No	Projected annual revenue subject to the copyright royalty, in currency units.
`secrecy_probability`	No	Probability the trade secret remains secret, in [0,1].
`brand_strength_index`	No	Brand strength index on a 0-100 scale (75 = strong).
`cash_flow_projections`	No	Projected after-tax cash flows per period t=1..n, in currency units.
`probability_of_success`	No	Probability of technical and commercial success, in [0,1].
`comparable_license_rates`	No	Comparable license royalty rates as decimals.
`competitive_advantage_period`	No	Years the competitive advantage is expected to persist.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`error`	No	Error message when the call fails.
`steps`	No	Intermediate calculation steps for traceability (one string per step).
`value`	Yes	Computed valuation, rate, or metric.
`method`	No	Formula / method name that produced the result.
`assumptions`	No	Modelling assumptions applied (list of strings or key/value object).
`formula_reference`	No	Mathematical formula or reference applied.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedSep 30, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), but the description adds genuinely non-derivable behavior: pure arithmetic with no I/O or external calls, results rounded to 2 decimals, parameters for other methods silently accepted and ignored, and errors returned for unknown methods or missing method-required params. The one thing it doesn't do is describe what the returned value looks like, though an output schema exists.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and routing, then method-by-method parameter requirements. It is long, but for 17 parameters across four formulas most sentences carry necessary conditional detail. Minor redundancy between 'Method selects the formula' and the later required/optional explanation.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given an output schema exists, return formatting need not be explained, and the description covers the remaining gaps an agent needs: method selection, per-method inputs, default behavior, ignored cross-method params, and error conditions. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds conditional information the flat schema cannot express: the exact required parameter set per method (e.g. patent = remaining_life + cash_flow_projections + probability_of_success + discount_rate), which parameters are optional, and that cash_flow_projections span remaining_life. It doesn't restate units or decimal conventions, which the schema already handles.

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 specific verb and resource ('value a specific IP right') and enumerates the four method variants (patent, trademark, copyright, trade_secret) with the formula each applies. It explicitly names the siblings it is not (valuation_technology, valuation_customer, valuation_human_capital), so an agent can route without opening any 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 ('value a specific IP right') plus when-not-to-use with named alternatives for technology/software/data/platform and for customer/workforce assets. The condition selecting each alternative is stated, not implied.

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

All Intangible Asset Valuation MCP Server 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.