tw-patent-mcp

gpss_build_url

Read-onlyIdempotent

Builds a GPSS API URL without sending the request, with verification codes masked as ***, so you can validate search conditions before querying.

Instructions

只組出 GPSS API 網址不送出（驗證碼以 *** 取代），用來檢查條件寫法。

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": {
      "conditions": "<conditions>"
    },
    "name": "gpss_build_url"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`qty`	No
`kind`	No
`skip`	No
`output`	No
`status`	No
`databases`	No
`conditions`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 20, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower, but the description adds two things annotations cannot: no request is actually issued, and the API key is masked as *** in the produced URL. It does not say what else the output contains beyond the URL string.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

One compact sentence, front-loaded with the build-only behavior and the masking detail. No filler, though the terseness means nothing was spent on the parameters that most need explanation.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be described, but for a 7-parameter, nested-object tool whose whole purpose is validating query conditions, the description never explains what a well-formed `conditions` map looks like or what the paging/filter parameters do. An agent could call it but would be guessing at the payload shape.

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

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% across 7 parameters including a free-form `conditions` object, so the description must carry the load. The only hint is '檢查條件寫法', which vaguely points at `conditions`; qty, skip, kind, status, databases and output are entirely undocumented, and the expected condition key/value syntax for a syntax-checking tool is never shown.

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

Purpose4/5

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

States a concrete verb+resource ('組出 GPSS API 網址') plus a crucial scope qualifier ('不送出'), which implicitly separates it from gpss_search. The sibling that actually performs the search is never named, but the read-only/build-only scope is unmistakable.

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?

'用來檢查條件寫法' gives a genuine when-to-use: validating condition syntax before running a real query. It does not name the alternative tool to call once the URL is validated, nor state any exclusion, so the routing guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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

Deploy Server