Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Patent PreCheck

Patent PreCheck

Official
by Patent-PreCheck
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

Patent PreCheck — compare invention to patent

precheck_compare_to_patent

Assess prior-art risk and similarity by comparing invention text to a specific US patent.

Instructions

Compare invention text to a known US patent: embedding similarity and prior-art risk analysis.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "code": "<code>",
      "patent_id": "<patent_id>"
    },
    "name": "precheck_compare_to_patent"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
codeYesSource code or invention description (>= 10 chars).
patent_idYesUS patent id (e.g. US1234567B2).
filenameNoOptional filename hint.
pathNoLocal file path (stdio server only).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.1.2

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the type of analysis but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, authentication needs, rate limits, or side effects. Some behavioral context is present but incomplete.

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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the key purpose and method. No extraneous words.

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?

The description gives the core function but lacks any hint about the output format or structure. Since there is no output schema, the agent needs more context on what to expect.

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 coverage is 100% and each parameter has a description in the schema. The tool's description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 compares invention text to a known US patent using embedding similarity and prior-art risk analysis. It explicitly identifies the action and differentiates from siblings like precheck_prior_art or precheck_lookup_patent.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus its many siblings. The description lacks any context about prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative 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