Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Patent PreCheck

Patent PreCheck

Official
by Patent-PreCheck
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

Patent PreCheck — US patent lookup

precheck_lookup_patent

Resolve a US patent or application number to retrieve patent details, including abstract and claim excerpts, for prior-art analysis and filing-readiness checks.

Instructions

Resolve a US patent or application number via USPTO ODP and optional corpus join.

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": {
      "patent_id": "<patent_id>"
    },
    "name": "precheck_lookup_patent"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
patent_idYesUS patent id (e.g. US1234567B2) or application number.
include_grant_textNoFetch abstract / claim 1 excerpt when available (default true).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.1.2

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It mentions external API (USPTO ODP) and optional corpus join, but does not disclose behavior on missing patents, error handling, or that it is read-only. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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?

Single sentence with 10 words, front-loaded with verb and resource, no wasted 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?

Tool has 2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations. Description covers core purpose but lacks details on return format, error behavior, and how the corpus join works. Adequate but incomplete.

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%, so baseline is 3. Description adds 'optional corpus join' which relates to include_grant_text parameter, but does not significantly enhance understanding beyond schema descriptions.

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?

Description clearly states the verb 'resolve' and resource 'US patent or application number', and distinguishes from siblings by specifying 'via USPTO ODP and optional corpus join'.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Description implies usage for looking up patent numbers but does not explicitly state when to use or when not to use compared to sibling tools like precheck_prior_art or precheck_compare_to_patent.

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