Skip to main content
Glama

get_top_authorities_of_origin

Identify leading countries for patent priority filings by analyzing patent data based on keywords or IPC classification, with options to filter by date and authority.

Instructions

Returns the top authorities (priority countries) of origin for patents matching the criteria. Analyze main sources of priority filings. Either keywords or IPC classification must be specified.

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".
langNoLanguage setting. Default is "en" (English). Choose "cn" (Chinese) or "en".

Implementation Reference

  • The handler function that executes the core logic for the 'get_top_authorities_of_origin' tool. It builds search parameters from the input args (with default lang='en'), and calls the shared PatSnap API helper for the 'priority-country' endpoint.
    async function getTopAuthoritiesOfOrigin(args: LangPatentArgs): Promise<ServerResult> {
      const params = buildCommonSearchParams(args);
      if (!args.lang) { // Add default lang if not provided
          params.append('lang', 'en');
      }
      return callPatsnapApi('priority-country', params, 'get top authorities of origin');
    }
  • The input schema specific to language-enabled tools like get_top_authorities_of_origin, extending the base schema with an optional 'lang' property. Referenced in the tool's ListTools response.
    const langPatentInputSchema = {
        ...basePatentInputSchema,
        properties: {
            ...basePatentInputSchema.properties,
            lang: { type: 'string', description: 'Language setting. Default is "en" (English). Choose "cn" (Chinese) or "en".' }
        }
    };
  • src/index.ts:357-360 (registration)
    Registration of the tool in the ListToolsRequestHandler, defining its name, description, and inputSchema for MCP clients to discover and validate inputs.
      name: 'get_top_authorities_of_origin',
      description: 'Returns the top authorities (priority countries) of origin for patents matching the criteria. Analyze main sources of priority filings. Either keywords or IPC classification must be specified.',
      inputSchema: langPatentInputSchema
    },
  • src/index.ts:397-397 (registration)
    Maps the tool name to its handler implementation in the toolImplementations dictionary, used by the CallToolRequestHandler for dispatching.
    'get_top_authorities_of_origin': getTopAuthoritiesOfOrigin,
  • Core helper function that performs the actual API call to PatSnap's insights endpoint (used by all tools, including 'priority-country' for this tool), handles authentication, errors, and formats the response as MCP ServerResult.
    async function callPatsnapApi(endpoint: string, params: URLSearchParams, errorContext: string): Promise<ServerResult> {
        const token = await getAccessToken(); // Will use cached token if available and valid
        const url = `${PATSNAP_API_BASE_URL}/insights/${endpoint}?${params.toString()}`;
        console.log(`Calling PatSnap API: ${url}`); // Log the request URL (consider using a proper logger)
    
        let response: Response;
        try {
            response = await fetch(url, {
                method: 'GET',
                headers: {
                    // 'Content-Type': 'application/json', // Typically not needed for GET
                    'Authorization': `Bearer ${token}`
                }
                // Consider adding a timeout
                // signal: AbortSignal.timeout(15000) // e.g., 15 seconds timeout
            });
        } catch (error) {
            console.error(`Network error calling PatSnap API endpoint ${endpoint}:`, error);
            throw new McpError(503, `Network error connecting to PatSnap API (${endpoint}): ${error instanceof Error ? error.message : String(error)}`);
        }
    
    
        if (!response.ok) {
            let errorText = `Status code ${response.status}`;
            try {
                errorText = await response.text();
            } catch (e) {
                console.error("Failed to read error response body:", e);
            }
            console.error(`API Error (${response.status}) for ${endpoint}: ${errorText}`); // Log error details
            // Invalidate cache on auth errors (401 Unauthorized, 403 Forbidden)
            if (response.status === 401 || response.status === 403) {
                 cachedToken = null;
                 console.log('Authentication error detected, clearing token cache.');
            }
            // Map common PatSnap error codes to potentially more user-friendly messages if desired
            // Example: if (errorText.includes("67200002")) { throw new McpError(429, "PatSnap API quota exceeded."); }
            throw new McpError(response.status, `Failed to ${errorContext}: ${errorText}`);
        }
    
        let json: PatsnapApiResponse; // Use interface type
        try {
            json = await response.json() as PatsnapApiResponse; // Type assertion
        } catch (error) {
            console.error(`Error parsing JSON response from ${endpoint}:`, error);
            throw new McpError(500, `Failed to parse JSON response from PatSnap API (${endpoint}): ${error instanceof Error ? error.message : String(error)}`);
        }
    
        // Basic check for PatSnap's own error structure within a 200 OK response
        if (json && typeof json.status === 'boolean' && json.status === false && json.error_code !== 0) {
            console.error(`PatSnap API returned error within successful response for ${endpoint}: Code ${json.error_code}, Msg: ${json.error_msg}`);
            // You might want to map these internal errors to McpError as well
            throw new McpError(400, `PatSnap API Error (${json.error_code || 'N/A'}): ${json.error_msg || 'Unknown error'}`);
        }
    
        return {
            content: [
                {
                    type: 'text',
                    // Return the raw JSON response as text, formatted for readability
                    text: JSON.stringify(json, null, 2)
                }
            ]
        };
    }
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the core function (returning top authorities) and a key constraint (keywords or IPC required), but doesn't mention other important behaviors like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication requirements, or what format the results will be in. The description adds some context but leaves significant behavioral aspects unspecified.

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 concise with two sentences that each serve a clear purpose. The first sentence states the tool's purpose, and the second provides critical usage guidance. There's no wasted language, and the most important information (the requirement for keywords or IPC) is appropriately positioned. It could be slightly more structured but is efficiently written.

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?

For a tool with 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides basic but incomplete context. It covers the purpose and a key requirement, but doesn't address what the output looks like (format, structure, what 'top' means quantitatively), nor does it provide guidance on interpreting results or potential limitations. Given the complexity and lack of structured behavioral information, the description should do more to compensate.

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 value beyond the schema - it mentions that 'Either keywords or IPC classification must be specified' which is also stated in the schema's description field. No additional parameter semantics or usage nuances are provided in the description beyond what's already in the structured 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 the tool's purpose: 'Returns the top authorities (priority countries) of origin for patents matching the criteria.' It specifies the verb ('Returns'), resource ('top authorities of origin'), and scope ('for patents matching criteria'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_top_assignees' or 'get_top_inventors' which also return top-ranked patent data but for different entities.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description provides clear usage context: 'Analyze main sources of priority filings' and specifies a key requirement: 'Either keywords or IPC classification must be specified.' This gives guidance on when to use the tool (for analyzing priority country sources) and what's needed for meaningful results. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternatives among the sibling 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