Skip to main content
Glama
Crawlora-org

Crawlora MCP

Official
by Crawlora-org
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

googlepatents_suggest

Autocomplete inventor or assignee names for Google Patents search by returning Google Patents' autocomplete suggestions as you type.

Instructions

Autocomplete an inventor or assignee name for Google Patents search. Returns Google Patents' own autocomplete suggestions for an inventor or assignee name as the user types, the same suggestions shown by the Inventor/Assignee fields on Google Patents' advanced search page. Public data, sourced from Google Patents' own search API.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
fieldYesWhich field to autocomplete. Allowed values: inventor, assignee
valueYesPartial name typed so far

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv1.17.5
    • addedInput schema / properties / field / enum
      Added value: +[
+  "inventor",
+  "assignee"
+]
  2. Addedv1.14.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden; it clearly discloses that the data is public, sourced from Google Patents' own API, and describes the behavior (returns suggestions as user types). It doesn't mention rate limits or response format, but for a simple autocomplete endpoint this is sufficient.

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?

Three concise sentences each serve a clear purpose: function, output specificity, and data source. Front-loaded with the verb and resource, no wasted words.

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 two-parameter suggest tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, data source, and usage timing. It doesn't specify the exact return structure, but that's not critical for a free-text suggestion endpoint.

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 both parameters well documented ('field' enum and 'value' as partial name). The description adds only the 'as the user types' usage context, so it does not significantly enhance parameter meaning beyond the schema.

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 it's an autocomplete tool for inventor or assignee names and specifies the output (Google Patents' own suggestions). It implies differentiation from search/detail tools by function, but does not explicitly name a sibling alternative.

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?

It gives context ('as the user types' and 'same suggestions shown by the Inventor/Assignee fields on advanced search page'), which implies when to use it. However, it does not state exclusions or contrast with related tools like googlepatents_search.

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