Govparse Government Data Gateway

uspto_patents_search

Which companies just got a US patent, and in what technology? Search recent granted patents (PatentsView, CC BY 4.0) by assignee organization (the company), inventor, CPC subclass/section, patent type, or assignee state/country and grant-date window. new_assignee=true isolates patents from an org with its first-ever grant (emerging/stealth signal); flipped_inventor=true finds a patent whose assignee gained an inventor from a prior different assignee (talent move). Public grants, observational. [price: $0.05/row]

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`sort`	No	field:direction — patent_date \| num_claims. Default 'patent_date:desc'.
`limit`	No	Max rows (default 25, cap 100).
`state`	No	Assignee state code(s), CSV (US assignees).
`offset`	No	Rows to skip, for paging.
`country`	No	Assignee country code(s), CSV (ISO).
`assignee`	No	Assignee organization (the company) name fragment.
`inventor`	No	Inventor name fragment (last name or full name).
`cpc_section`	No	CPC section letter(s), CSV (A-H, Y).
`patent_type`	No	utility \| design \| plant \| reissue, CSV.
`cpc_subclass`	No	CPC subclass/class/section prefix(es), CSV. G06N=AI/ML, H04L=networking.
`new_assignee`	No	true → only patents whose assignee org is new/emerging (first-ever grant recent).
`granted_after`	No	Grant date on or after (YYYY-MM-DD).
`granted_before`	No	Grant date on or before (YYYY-MM-DD).
`assignee_entity`	No	Resolved entities.employers entity_id (UUID), exact match.
`flipped_inventor`	No	true → only patents whose assignee gained an inventor from a prior different assignee.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

AddedJul 25, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, description carries full burden. It notes 'Public grants, observational' and the price per row, implying read-only. However, it lacks details on authentication, rate limits, concurrency, or what happens if parameters conflict. Behavioral expectations are partially disclosed.

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?

Description is concise, starting with an engaging question that captures the tool's value. It packs useful context into two sentences without unnecessary verbosity. Could be slightly more structured, but effective.

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?

With 15 parameters and no output schema, the description should explain what results look like. It does not mention return fields or pagination behavior beyond offset/limit. The price is included, but output format is missing. Adequate but not fully complete.

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 covers all 15 parameters with descriptions and examples. Description adds value by explaining new_assignee as 'emerging/stealth signal' and flipped_inventor as 'talent move', providing context beyond schema. However, some parameters like state and country are straightforward and need no extra context.

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

Purpose4/5

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

Description clearly states the tool searches recent granted patents by various criteria and highlights specific use cases (new_assignee, flipped_inventor). The purpose is clear but does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tool uspto_assignees_search, which focuses on assignees differently.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Description implies usage for searching patents by assignee, inventor, CPC, etc., and mentions grant-date window. However, it does not specify when not to use it or provide alternatives among siblings. No explicit guidance on when to choose this over other patent tools.

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

All Govparse Government Data Gateway tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct domain and specific action (e.g., FDA approvals vs clearances vs recalls; firmstanding business360 dossier vs search vs screen). Even overlapping concepts like 'business360' vs 'business360_lookup' are distinguished by input (UUID vs name+state). No two tools appear to do the same thing.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools use a consistent lowercase snake_case pattern with domain prefix (e.g., fda_*, firmstanding_*, fmcsa_*, govcon_*). Action words (search, lookup, screen, feed, stats) follow predictable usage. The naming is uniform and easy to parse.

Tool Count4/5

38 tools is on the higher end but appropriate for a comprehensive government data gateway spanning multiple agencies and datasets. Each domain has a reasonable number of tools (e.g., FMCSA: 7, OFLC: 6). Could potentially be trimmed slightly, but overall well-scoped for the stated purpose.

Completeness5/5

The tool surface covers the major government data sources comprehensively: FDA (approvals, clearances, recalls), FMCSA (carrier census, safety, insurance, etc.), FSIS, DOJ/OFLC, OSHA/EPA/DOL enforcement, SEC insider filings, clinical trials, VA facilities/opportunities/vendors, and federal contracting. No obvious gaps for the stated gateway purpose.

Resources

Need Help?