tokkyo-maru
Server Details
特許まる — 発明を入れるだけで特許性の事前診断・明細書骨子・新規性喪失(特許法30条)判定。本人/弁理士の出願支援(代理しない)。
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Tool Definition Quality
Average 3.1/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored. Lowest: 2.4/5.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: analyzing patentability, checking legal requirements, and drafting patent specifications. No overlap in functionality.
All tools follow a consistent 'tokkyo_verb' pattern (analyze, check, draft), making it easy to infer their actions.
Three tools is appropriate for a focused patent assistant covering analysis, checking, and drafting. Slightly limited but sufficient for the stated domain.
Covers the key workflow stages (diagnose, check, draft). Missing a dedicated prior art search tool, but the analyze tool provides search queries, so the gap is minor.
Available Tools
3 toolstokkyo_analyzeAInspect
発明（名称・技術分野・課題・解決手段・技術事実）を渡すと、特許性を事前診断する。IPC候補・新規性喪失(特許法30条)・記載要件・発明適格性・進歩性を◯△✕で自己診断し、先行技術調査の角度とクエリも返す。代理出願はしない(本人/弁理士支援)。最終判断は弁理士。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ipc | No | ||
| facts | No | 実装事実・数値・手順(実施可能要件の裏付け) | |
| field | No | 技術分野 | |
| title | Yes | 発明の名称 | |
| today | No | 判定基準日 YYYY-MM-DD（30条の残余月数計算に使用） | |
| problem | No | 解決しようとする課題 | |
| category | No | software | chem | other | |
| priorArt | No | [{id, title, threat:高/中/低}] | |
| solution | No | 課題を解決するための手段(=独立項の要旨) | |
| claimCores | No | 独立項の核 [{kind:装置/方法/プログラム/組成物/製造方法/用途/システム, core:限定文}] | |
| disclosures | No | 自己公開歴 [{where, date:YYYY-MM-DD}]（新規性喪失判定用） |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool performs self-diagnosis, does not file applications, and relies on final judgment by a patent attorney. However, it does not mention whether it modifies any data or has side effects, which would be expected for a diagnostic tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the main action and key outputs (IPC, novelty loss, inventive step) while also clarifying limitations (not filing, final judgment by attorney). Every sentence serves a purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Considering the tool's complexity (11 parameters, no output schema), the description adequately explains what the tool does and what it returns (diagnosis with symbols, angles, queries). However, it could be more complete by describing how parameters interact or any prerequisites (e.g., need for claimCores for inventive step analysis).
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 91%, so the baseline is 3. The description mentions some input fields (name, field, problem, solution, facts) but does not add meaningful detail beyond what is already in the schema. No extra value is provided for parameters like today, category, or disclosures.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description explicitly states that the tool pre-diagnoses patentability by analyzing invention details. It lists specific outputs like IPC candidates, novelty loss, etc. The verb 'analyze' and resource 'patentability' are clear, and the context from sibling tools differentiates it from check and draft functions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides context about not filing and supporting individuals/attorneys, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like tokkyo_check or tokkyo_draft. The implied use case is preliminary analysis, but clearer guidance would improve the score.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
tokkyo_checkBInspect
tokkyo.json を渡すと、新規性喪失(特許法30条)・記載要件(サポート/実施可能)・発明適格性・進歩性を、その場で決定論的に◯△✕判定する。bim.house の houki_check(建築基準法その場判定)の特許版。登録可否の法的確定ではない(最終は弁理士)。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| facts | No | ||
| title | Yes | ||
| today | No | ||
| category | No | ||
| priorArt | No | ||
| claimCores | No | ||
| disclosures | No |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses deterministic nature and that it is not a final legal opinion. Lacks detail on output format (◯△✕ meaning) and side effects. With no annotations, more depth would be beneficial.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences front-load key information. Slightly unstructured (no bullets), but efficient overall.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description omits crucial details about parameter usage, return format, and behavior. Relies heavily on external context (houki_check, tokkyo_draft).
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 0% description coverage for individual parameters, and the description only references 'tokkyo.json' without explaining the 7 parameters like facts, priorArt, claimCores. The top-level schema description is insufficient.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states it performs deterministic ◯△✕ judgments on patentability criteria (novelty loss, written description, eligibility, inventive step) using tokkyo.json. Distinguishes from sibling tools by referencing houki_check as the patent version.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. Only mentions it is not a final legal determination, but fails to compare with tokkyo_analyze and tokkyo_draft or specify prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
tokkyo_draftCInspect
発明から、特許明細書一式の骨子(tokkyo.json正本＋特許請求の範囲＋明細書セクション＋要約)を決定論生成して返す。bim.house の bim.json／商標まるの shohyo.json に相当。tokkyo_check も同梱。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ipc | No | ||
| facts | No | ||
| field | No | ||
| title | Yes | ||
| today | No | ||
| problem | No | ||
| category | No | ||
| priorArt | No | ||
| solution | No | ||
| applicant | No | ||
| claimCores | No | ||
| disclosures | No |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It states deterministic generation and mentions included check functionality, but lacks detail on side effects, prerequisites, or permissions. Minimal transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short and front-loaded with the main purpose. However, it is somewhat cryptic and could be clearer, especially regarding the included tokkyo_check.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 12 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is highly incomplete. It lacks parameter explanations, usage context, and output format details.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, yet the description provides no explanation of any parameters. The 12 parameters (title, ipc, facts, etc.) are not described, leaving the agent without necessary semantic guidance.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it generates a patent specification skeleton from an invention, listing components. However, it doesn't clearly differentiate from siblings like tokkyo_analyze, and the mention of including tokkyo_check blurs the boundary.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions equivalence to other domain tools but does not provide usage context or exclusion criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!