tw-patent-mcp

ops_fulltext

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve EPO OPS patent full text—claims, description, or abstract—by patent number for EP, WO, and select European country documents.

Instructions

EPO OPS 全文：part 為 claims、description 或 abstract。全文只有 EP、WO 與部分歐洲國家。

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": "ops_fulltext"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`fmt`	No	auto
`part`	No	claims
`number`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 20, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

The annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds an important availability restriction about which jurisdictions have full text, which is behaviorally relevant beyond the annotations, but it does not explain failure behavior when full text is unavailable.

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?

The description is very compact and front-loads the key resource identity and part options. It earns its place, though the terse phrasing leaves important parameter details out rather than being poorly structured.

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 explained. Still, for a retrieval tool with three parameters and no schema descriptions, the definition is incomplete: it omits the required 'number' format and the meaning of 'fmt', leaving the agent to guess critical invocation details.

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%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It explains the 'part' parameter values well but leaves the required 'number' parameter and the 'fmt' parameter completely undocumented, which is a significant gap for a 3-parameter tool.

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?

The description clearly identifies the resource as EPO OPS full text and specifies the available parts (claims, description, abstract). It implicitly distinguishes the tool from sibling bibliographic or PDF tools by focusing on full-text retrieval, though it does not use an explicit verb like 'retrieve'.

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?

It gives a useful applicability constraint (full text only for EP, WO, and some European countries), which helps an agent know when this tool is valid. However, it does not explicitly compare with alternatives like ops_biblio or ops_download_pdf or state when not to use this tool.

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

Deploy Server