List available PDF documents and page counts for a patent number via EPO OPS, covering full documents, drawings, and first-page clippings.
EPO OPS 影像清單：某件有哪些 PDF 文件（FullDocument 全件、Drawing 圖式、FirstPageClipping 首頁）與頁數。台灣、美國、歐洲等公報原件多數可取得。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| fmt | No | auto | |
| number | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that output is a document inventory with page counts rather than the PDFs themselves, and flags coverage limitations, but says nothing about read-only nature, auth, rate limits, or pagination behavior.
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?
Two dense sentences with the resource and returned fields front-loaded, and no wasted filler; the availability sentence is short and adds relevant scope.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the tool is simple (two parameters). However, with no annotations and zero parameter documentation, the description leaves the caller without the meaning of either argument, which is a real gap for correct invocation.
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 0% for both parameters. The description implies a case identifier (某件) but never explains the format of 'number' nor the purpose of 'fmt' or its 'auto' default, so it fails to compensate for the schema gap.
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 names a specific resource – the EPO OPS image/document list for a patent case – and enumerates the document kinds it reports (FullDocument, Drawing, FirstPageClipping) plus page counts. It is concrete enough that an agent knows it returns document metadata rather than file content, though it never names a sibling such as ops_download_pdf to sharpen the boundary.
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?
There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement; an agent is left to infer that this precedes a download by reading ops_download_pdf. The availability note (TW/US/EP gazettes mostly obtainable) hints at coverage but offers no routing rule or prerequisite.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.