Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Patent PreCheck

Patent PreCheck

Official
by Patent-PreCheck
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

Patent PreCheck — prior art matches

precheck_prior_art

Retrieve prior-art matches by submitting code or invention description, returning titles, sources, and similarity scores.

Instructions

Return the closest prior-art matches (titles, sources, similarity, URLs) for an invention.

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_prior_art"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
codeNoSource code or invention description (>= 10 chars).
pathNoPath to a local file to read and analyze instead of passing `code` inline.
filenameNoOptional filename hint (e.g. main.ts).
tierNoAnalysis tier. Defaults to free.
limitNoMax matches to return (default 8).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.1.2

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description must carry full weight for behavioral traits. It only mentions return fields but omits side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or data handling (e.g., code sent to server). For a tool accepting file paths and code, this is insufficient.

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 sentence with no wasted words, efficiently conveying the core function.

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 5 parameters, no output schema, and 11 siblings, the description is too sparse. It does not explain how inputs interact (e.g., code vs path), return format details, or typical use cases. The schema partly compensates, but overall context is lacking.

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. The description adds no extra parameter context beyond what the schema provides; it only states the output fields. No additional meaning is added.

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 returns closest prior-art matches with specific fields (titles, sources, similarity, URLs) for an invention. It effectively distinguishes from siblings like precheck_compare_to_patent and precheck_search_corpus.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools. It lacks explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative suggestions.

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