Skip to main content
Glama
BRNDMK

brandomica-mcp-server

Trademark Search

brandomica_check_trademarks
Read-onlyIdempotent

Check if a brand name is available by searching USPTO and EUIPO trademark registries to identify existing registrations.

Instructions

Check trademark registries for existing registrations of a brand name. USPTO uses Turso (hosted SQLite FTS5) as the primary provider with local bulk index as legacy fallback; EUIPO uses Trademark Search API (OAuth2) with manual search link fallback.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
brand_nameYesThe brand name to check

Implementation Reference

  • The implementation and registration of the "brandomica_check_trademarks" tool. It uses the `fetchApi` helper function to query the backend and `formatTrademarks` to format the result.
      "brandomica_check_trademarks",
      {
        title: "Trademark Search",
        description:
          "Check trademark registries for existing registrations of a brand name. USPTO uses Turso (hosted SQLite FTS5) as the primary provider with local bulk index as legacy fallback; EUIPO uses Trademark Search API (OAuth2) with manual search link fallback.",
        inputSchema: z.object(brandNameInput).strict(),
        annotations: toolAnnotations,
      },
      async ({ brand_name }) => {
        const data = (await fetchApi("check-trademarks", brand_name)) as {
          results: TrademarkResult[];
        };
        return {
          content: [{ type: "text" as const, text: formatTrademarks(data) }],
        };
      }
    );
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate this is a read-only, open-world, idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds valuable context beyond this: it specifies which trademark registries are checked (USPTO and EUIPO) and details the technical implementations (Turso SQLite FTS5, Trademark Search API with OAuth2, fallback mechanisms). This enhances transparency about data sources and reliability, though it doesn't cover rate limits or auth needs beyond OAuth2 mention.

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?

The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. The second sentence adds technical implementation details, which are relevant but could be considered slightly dense. Overall, it's efficient with minimal waste, though not perfectly concise.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (checking multiple registries with technical fallbacks), annotations cover safety aspects, but there's no output schema. The description provides good context on data sources and implementations but doesn't explain return values or result format. For a read-only query tool, this leaves gaps in understanding what the agent will receive, making it adequate but not fully complete.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'brand_name' fully documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any semantic details about the parameter beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain format constraints or provide examples). Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.

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's purpose: 'Check trademark registries for existing registrations of a brand name.' This specifies the verb ('check'), resource ('trademark registries'), and target ('brand name'). However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from siblings like 'brandomica_check_all' or 'brandomica_compare_brands', which might also involve trademark checking, so it's not a perfect 5.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions technical details about providers (USPTO, EUIPO) but doesn't clarify if this is the primary trademark check tool or how it relates to siblings like 'brandomica_check_all' or 'brandomica_batch_check'. There's no explicit when/when-not or alternative usage context.

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/BRNDMK/brandomica-mcp-server'

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