Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Patent PreCheck

Patent PreCheck

Official
by Patent-PreCheck
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

Patent PreCheck — CPC classification hints

precheck_cpc_suggest

Suggest CPC codes for invention descriptions to streamline patent classification.

Instructions

Suggest Cooperative Patent Classification (CPC) codes for an invention description. Offline heuristic — informational only.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "precheck_cpc_suggest"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
codeNoSource code or invention description (>= 10 chars).
pathNoPath to a local file to read and analyze instead of passing `code` inline.
limitNoMax suggestions (default 5).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.1.2

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 must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions 'Offline heuristic' and 'informational only', indicating non-authoritative results, but lacks details on accuracy, latency, or error handling.

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 two short, front-loaded sentences with no extraneous text. Every word serves a purpose.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given no output schema, the description should explain what the tool returns (e.g., list of codes, confidence scores). It does not, leaving the agent uninformed about the response format.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds no new information beyond the schema; it does not clarify parameter usage, format, or relationships.

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 action ('Suggest'), the resource ('Cooperative Patent Classification (CPC) codes'), and the input context ('invention description'). It is distinct from sibling tools like precheck_prior_art or precheck_rejection_patterns.

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 explicit guidance on when to use or not use this tool versus alternatives. The phrase 'Offline heuristic — informational only' hints at limitations but does not direct the agent to appropriate contexts or exclude inappropriate ones.

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