Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
tw-patent-mcp

tw-patent-mcp

by aa0101181514
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

gpss_get

Read-onlyIdempotent

Fetches a single GPSS patent record by publication or application number, including its abstract and claims for review.

Instructions

用公開/公告號（PN）或申請號（AN）取單筆 GPSS 資料，含摘要與請求項。例：number="TW201644272A"。

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": {
      "number": "<number>"
    },
    "name": "gpss_get"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
byNoPN
numberYes
databasesNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the payload contains abstract and claims, but there is an output schema, and it discloses nothing about behavior on missing records, error cases, or coverage of the optional databases parameter.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, followed by a compact worked example. No filler; only slight redundancy in restating the number format in the example.

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?

Adequate for a simple single-record lookup with annotations and an output schema doing much of the work, but the undocumented 'databases' parameter and the absence of any guidance on behavior when a number is not found leave it short of complete.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage the description must compensate, and it partially does: it explains that the number can be a PN or an AN, which implicitly documents the 'by' values, and supplies a concrete example. The third parameter, 'databases', is never mentioned, leaving a real gap.

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 specific verb and resource: retrieve a single GPSS record ('取單筆 GPSS 資料') including abstract and claims. The 'single record' scope implicitly contrasts with gpss_search, but the sibling is never named, so differentiation is left to inference.

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?

Tells the agent it can look up by publication number (PN) or application number (AN), which implies use for a known identifier, but never says when to prefer this over gpss_search or the other siblings. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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