Skip to main content
Glama
Crawlora-org

Crawlora MCP

Official
by Crawlora-org
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

usptoppubs_search

Search USPTO's patent full-text index for granted patents and published applications, returning bibliographic results with advanced field, date, and boolean query support.

Instructions

Search USPTO's own patent full-text search index. Searches USPTO Patent Public Search's full-text index of granted patents and published applications, returning bibliographic results (title, applicant/assignee, inventors, filing and publication dates, application number, IPC/CPC classifications, page count). q accepts USPTO's full Advanced Search query syntax -- field-specific search (e.g. battery.ti., Microsoft.as.), date ranges (@pd>=20200101<=20241231), boolean and proximity operators, and wildcards -- see the markdown doc for the full field-code table and syntax reference.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
qYesSearch query text -- accepts USPTO's full Advanced Search (BRS) query syntax: field codes, date ranges, boolean/proximity operators, wildcards
numNoResults to return, default 20, max 100
pageNoResults page, 0-indexed, default 0
databasesNoComma-separated subset of databases to search. Allowed values: US-PGPUB, USPAT, USOCR. Defaults to all three

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv1.14.0

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
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 the return shape (title, assignee, inventors, dates, application number, classifications, page count), which is useful. But it says nothing about rate limits, pagination behavior, or result caps beyond what the schema states, which is a gap for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

Front-loaded with the search scope, then return fields, then query syntax. Three dense but well-ordered sentences with no filler. Slightly long but each part adds information an agent needs.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly fills the gap by enumerating returned bibliographic fields, and it explains the query language for the one required parameter. Minor omissions remain around pagination and the databases parameter, but overall it is complete enough to call correctly.

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 coverage is 100% so the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond the schema by giving concrete query-syntax examples (battery.ti., Microsoft.as., @pd>=20200101<=20241231), naming operator categories, and pointing to a markdown reference for the field-code table, which genuinely enriches the q parameter.

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 (Search) and resource (USPTO's own patent full-text index of granted patents and published applications), and distinguishes itself from Google Patents by emphasizing USPTO's native index. However, it never routes against the sibling usptoppubs_detail, so an agent gets no explicit search-vs-detail differentiation.

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 explains what it returns and how to write queries but gives no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives such as usptoppubs_detail or googlepatents_search. Usage is only inferable from the word '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