KIPRIS Plus MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It mentions the tool supports patent/utility inclusion filters and administrative status filters, which adds useful context. However, it doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication requirements, pagination behavior, or what the response format looks like.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is appropriately concise with two sentences that efficiently convey the tool's purpose and key features. It's front-loaded with the core functionality and follows with supporting details about the endpoint and filters.

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

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

For a search tool with 8 parameters, 100% schema coverage, but no annotations or output schema, the description provides adequate context about what the tool does and its endpoint distinction. However, it lacks information about response format, error handling, and other behavioral aspects that would be helpful for an AI agent.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

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 mentions patent/utility inclusion and administrative status filters, which aligns with parameters but doesn't add significant meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool searches for patents/utility models using CPC classification codes, with specific mention of patent/utility inclusion and administrative status filters. It distinguishes from 'getAdvancedSearch' by mentioning a dedicated endpoint, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'kipris_search' or 'kipris_free_search'.

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

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

The description provides clear context about when to use this tool by mentioning it uses a dedicated endpoint separate from 'getAdvancedSearch' and supports specific filters. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or provide alternatives among the sibling tools listed.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.