Skip to main content
Glama

find_similar_patents

Find patents similar to a known patent or a text description. Supports prior art and infringement searches with optional date, country, and strategy filters.

Instructions

既存特許または自由文に似た特許を探す(先行技術調査・侵害調査向け)。

    使い分け:
    - 既存の特許を起点にする場合は publication_number を渡す
    - 未出願のアイデアや請求項案から探す場合は text を渡す
    - 両方渡すと、その特許の周辺をテキストの観点で絞り込む

    結果の各件には「どの手法でヒットしたか」が付くので、
    提供元の類似判定によるものか、意味検索によるものかを区別できる。
    

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
textNo発明の説明・請求項の草案・技術課題などの自由文。まだ出願していないアイデアの先行技術を探すときはこちらを使う。文が具体的で長いほど精度が上がる。
afterNoこの日付以降(YYYY-MM-DD)
limitNo取得件数
beforeNoこの日付以前(YYYY-MM-DD)。先行技術調査では自分の出願日を指定すると効く。
countryNo国コードで絞り込む(例: ["JP"])
providerNo使用するデータソース
strategyNoauto: 提供元の類似文献リストと意味検索を統合(既定)/ provider_similar: 提供元の類似文献リストのみ / semantic: テキストの意味検索のみ / classification: 起点特許と同じ特許分類から探すauto
date_fieldNoafter/before の基準日priority
output_formatNomarkdown(既定)または jsonmarkdown
exclude_familyNo起点特許と同じパテントファミリーを除外する
publication_numberNo起点にする特許の公開番号(例: JP2020123456A)。この特許に似た特許を探す。

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that each result includes the matching method (provider similarity vs semantic search), which is helpful behavioral context. However, it does not mention other important traits like whether the operation is read-only, data source behavior, or rate limits, leaving partial transparency.

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 concise, well-structured, and front-loaded with the main purpose followed by usage guidance. Every sentence contributes value, and the formatting makes the key distinctions easy to scan.

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?

Given the tool has 11 parameters and an output schema, the description covers the essential decisions: the starting point, the combination of inputs, and how to interpret results. It does not repeat schema details, and the schema already documents parameters thoroughly. The description is adequately complete for this complexity.

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 description coverage is 100%, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining how publication_number and text interact when both are provided ('narrow around that patent from a text perspective'), which is not readily apparent from individual parameter descriptions.

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?

The description clearly states the tool finds patents similar to an existing patent or free text, specifically for prior art/infringement searches. This is a specific verb+resource, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like search_patents, so it falls short of a 5.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description provides explicit usage patterns: pass publication_number for an existing patent, pass text for unpatented ideas, or both to narrow around a patent. This is clear context for when to use each parameter, but it does not name alternatives or exclusions relative to sibling tools, so it earns a 4.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/9g2s6g2cnh-arch/patent-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server