Skip to main content
Glama
Crawlora-org

Crawlora MCP

Official
by Crawlora-org
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

googlepatents_search

Search Google Patents by keyword, inventor, assignee, office, status, type, and date filters; returns paginated hits plus top assignee, inventor, and classification breakdowns.

Instructions

Search Google Patents by keyword, inventor, assignee, and other filters. Searches Google Patents' full index by free-text query, with optional inventor, assignee, patent office, status, type, language, and date filters. Returns a page of hits plus top-assignee/top-inventor/top-classification breakdowns over the full result set.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
qYesFree-text search query
numNoResults per page, default 10, max 100
pageNoPage number, 0-indexed, default 0
sortNoSort order. Allowed values: relevance, new, old. Defaults to relevance
typeNoFilter by document type. Allowed values: PATENT, DESIGN
afterNoOnly results dated on or after this date (YYYY-MM-DD)
beforeNoOnly results dated on or before this date (YYYY-MM-DD)
statusNoFilter by legal status. Allowed values: GRANT, APPLICATION
countryNoFilter by patent office/authority code, e.g. US, EP, WO, CN, JP
assigneeNoFilter by assignee/applicant name
inventorNoFilter by inventor name
languageNoFilter by document language. Allowed values: ENGLISH, GERMAN, CHINESE, FRENCH, SPANISH, ARABIC, JAPANESE, KOREAN, PORTUGUESE, RUSSIAN, ITALIAN, DUTCH, SWEDISH, FINNISH, NORWEGIAN, DANISH
date_fieldNoWhich date before/after filter. Allowed values: priority, filing, publication. Defaults to priority when before/after is set

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed5 schema fields changedv1.17.5
    • addedInput schema / properties / date_field / enum
      Added value: +[
+  "priority",
+  "filing",
+  "publication"
+]
    • addedInput schema / properties / language / enum
      Added value: +[
+  "ENGLISH",
+  "GERMAN",
+  "CHINESE",
+  "FRENCH",
+  "SPANISH",
+  "ARABIC",
+  "JAPANESE",
+  "KOREAN",
+  "PORTUGUESE",
+  "RUSSIAN",
+  "ITALIAN",
+  "DUTCH",
+  "SWEDISH",
+  "FINNISH",
+  "NORWEGIAN",
+  "DANISH"
+]
    • addedInput schema / properties / sort / enum
      Added value: +[
+  "relevance",
+  "new",
+  "old"
+]
    • addedInput schema / properties / status / enum
      Added value: +[
+  "GRANT",
+  "APPLICATION"
+]
    • addedInput schema / properties / type / enum
      Added value: +[
+  "PATENT",
+  "DESIGN"
+]
  2. Addedv1.14.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the return composition (a page of hits plus top-assignee/top-inventor/top-classification breakdowns), which compensates for the missing output schema, but it says nothing about pagination limits, result caps, or rate/auth behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three sentences, but the first two are largely redundant – both list keyword/inventor/assignee filters, and the second expands the same point. The return-shape sentence is the only one that adds distinct information.

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?

For a 13-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete: params are covered by the schema and the description fills the return-value gap. It still omits pagination/limit behavior that an agent would need to page correctly.

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%, so all 13 parameters are already documented with types, enums, and defaults. The description only restates the filter categories the schema already enumerates, adding no syntax or interaction detail (e.g. how date_field couples with before/after).

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Search Google Patents') and specifies scope ('full index'). It does not differentiate itself from siblings like googlepatents_recent, googlepatents_classification, or googlepatents_suggest, so an agent gets no routing help.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives, despite five sibling patent tools. The description never says when to prefer this general search over the classification or recent-listing tools.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools