Skip to main content
Glama

get_top_assignees

Identify top companies with the largest patent portfolios in specific technology areas to analyze competitive landscapes and market players.

Instructions

Shows the top companies (assignees) with the largest patent portfolios. Identify largest players and competitive threats. Returns up to the top 10 assignees. Note: Search must contain either keywords or IPC. If both are provided, IPC is prioritized.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
keywordsNoKeywords to search within patent title and abstract/summary. Supports AND, OR, NOT logic. Example: "mobile phone AND (screen OR battery)"
ipcNoPatent IPC classification code. Used to specify a particular technology field.
apply_start_timeNoPatent application start year (yyyy format). Filters by application filing date.
apply_end_timeNoPatent application end year (yyyy format). Filters by application filing date.
public_start_timeNoPatent publication start year (yyyy format). Filters by publication date.
public_end_timeNoPatent publication end year (yyyy format). Filters by publication date.
authorityNoPatent authority code (e.g., CN, US, EP, JP). Filters by patent office. Use OR for multiple, e.g., "US OR EP".
langYesLanguage setting. Default is "en" (English). Choose "cn" (Chinese) or "en".

Implementation Reference

  • The handler function for the 'get_top_assignees' tool. It constructs search parameters using buildCommonSearchParams, sets a default language of 'en' if not provided, and delegates to the shared callPatsnapApi helper for the 'applicant-ranking' endpoint.
    async function getTopAssignees(args: LangPatentArgs): Promise<ServerResult> {
      const params = buildCommonSearchParams(args);
      if (!args.lang) { // Add default lang if not provided
          params.append('lang', 'en');
      }
      return callPatsnapApi('applicant-ranking', params, 'get top assignees');
  • src/index.ts:366-370 (registration)
    Registration of the 'get_top_assignees' tool in the ListToolsRequestHandler response. Specifies the tool name, description, and input schema.
    {
      name: 'get_top_assignees',
      description: 'Shows the top companies (assignees) with the largest patent portfolios. Identify largest players and competitive threats. Returns up to the top 10 assignees. Note: Search must contain either keywords or IPC. If both are provided, IPC is prioritized.',
      inputSchema: langRequiredPatentInputSchema
    },
  • src/index.ts:400-400 (registration)
    Associates the tool name 'get_top_assignees' with its handler function in the toolImplementations map used for dispatching tool calls.
    'get_top_assignees': getTopAssignees,
  • Schema definition specific to tools requiring the 'lang' parameter, used as inputSchema for 'get_top_assignees'.
    const langRequiredPatentInputSchema = {
        ...langPatentInputSchema,
        required: ['lang']
    };
  • TypeScript type definition for the arguments accepted by the get_top_assignees handler.
    type LangPatentArgs = BasePatentArgs & { lang?: string };
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and adds valuable behavioral context: it discloses the return limit ('Returns up to the top 10 assignees') and search prioritization behavior ('IPC is prioritized'). However, it doesn't mention rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling, leaving some gaps for a tool with 8 parameters.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by usage context and critical constraints. Every sentence earns its place: the first states what it does, the second provides usage guidance, and the third specifies key behavioral rules, with 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?

Given the tool's complexity (8 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is reasonably complete: it explains purpose, usage, key constraints, and return limits. However, without annotations or output schema, it could benefit from more detail on response format or error cases, but it covers essential context well.

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 the schema already documents all 8 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal parameter semantics beyond the schema, only reinforcing the keywords/IPC requirement and prioritization rule. This meets the baseline of 3 when schema coverage is high.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Shows the top companies (assignees) with the largest patent portfolios' and 'Returns up to the top 10 assignees.' It specifies the verb ('Shows'), resource ('top companies/assignees'), and scope ('largest patent portfolios'), distinguishing it from siblings like get_top_inventors or get_most_cited_patents.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description provides explicit guidance: 'Identify largest players and competitive threats' indicates when to use it, and 'Note: Search must contain either keywords or IPC. If both are provided, IPC is prioritized' specifies prerequisites and prioritization rules, helping differentiate from other patent analysis tools.

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/KunihiroS/patsnap-mcp'

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