Skip to main content
Glama

Query Trademarks

query_trademarks

Search US trademarks from USPTO data by mark text, owner name, class, status, or date range to verify availability and check registrations.

Instructions

Search US trademarks from the USPTO. Filter by mark text, owner name, international class, status, and filing/registration date range. Source: USPTO TSDR and bulk XML data, updated weekly.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
mark_textNoTrademark text/name (partial match, e.g. 'APPLE')
owner_nameNoTrademark owner/applicant name (partial match)
international_classNoNice Classification code (e.g. '009' for computers/electronics)
statusNoTrademark status (e.g. REGISTERED, PENDING, ABANDONED, CANCELLED)
date_fromNoStart date for filing/registration (YYYY-MM-DD)
date_toNoEnd date for filing/registration (YYYY-MM-DD)
limitNoMaximum results to return (default 25, max 100)

Implementation Reference

  • The 'query_trademarks' tool is registered and implemented within 'registerTrademarkTools' in 'src/tools/trademarks.ts'. It uses a Zod schema for input validation and performs an asynchronous API call to fetch trademark data.
    server.registerTool(
      "query_trademarks",
      {
        title: "Query Trademarks",
        description:
          "Search US trademarks from the USPTO. Filter by mark text, owner name, " +
          "international class, status, and filing/registration date range. " +
          "Source: USPTO TSDR and bulk XML data, updated weekly.",
        inputSchema: {
          mark_text: z
            .string()
            .optional()
            .describe("Trademark text/name (partial match, e.g. 'APPLE')"),
          owner_name: z
            .string()
            .optional()
            .describe("Trademark owner/applicant name (partial match)"),
          international_class: z
            .string()
            .optional()
            .describe("Nice Classification code (e.g. '009' for computers/electronics)"),
          status: z
            .string()
            .optional()
            .describe("Trademark status (e.g. REGISTERED, PENDING, ABANDONED, CANCELLED)"),
          date_from: z
            .string()
            .optional()
            .describe("Start date for filing/registration (YYYY-MM-DD)"),
          date_to: z
            .string()
            .optional()
            .describe("End date for filing/registration (YYYY-MM-DD)"),
          limit: z
            .number()
            .int()
            .min(1)
            .max(100)
            .optional()
            .describe("Maximum results to return (default 25, max 100)"),
        },
      },
      async ({ mark_text, owner_name, international_class, status, date_from, date_to, limit }) => {
        const res = await apiGet<TrademarkQueryResponse>("/api/v1/trademarks", {
          mark_text,
          owner_name,
          international_class,
          status,
          date_from,
          date_to,
          limit: limit ?? 25,
        });
    
        if (!res.ok) {
          return {
            content: [
              {
                type: "text" as const,
                text: `API error (${res.status}): ${JSON.stringify(res.data)}`,
              },
            ],
            isError: true,
          };
        }
    
        const { count, data } = res.data;
        const summary = `Found ${count} trademark(s).`;
        const json = JSON.stringify(data, null, 2);
    
        return {
          content: [{ type: "text" as const, text: `${summary}\n\n${json}` }],
        };
      },
    );
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and adds valuable behavioral context: it specifies the data source ('USPTO TSDR and bulk XML data'), update frequency ('updated weekly'), and search scope ('partial match' implied through examples). However, it doesn't mention pagination behavior, rate limits, or authentication requirements.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Two sentences with zero waste: first sentence states purpose and filterable fields, second sentence provides source and update frequency. Every element earns its place, and the most important information (search functionality) is front-loaded.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a search tool with 7 well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete: it covers purpose, scope, data source, and update frequency. However, without annotations or output schema, it could better describe result format, pagination, or error cases.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 7 parameters thoroughly. The description lists the filterable fields but doesn't add meaningful semantic context beyond what's in the parameter descriptions (e.g., 'partial match' is already in schema). 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.

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states the specific action ('Search US trademarks from the USPTO') and resource ('trademarks'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'lookup_trademark' or 'trademark_stats' by emphasizing search/filtering capabilities rather than single-record lookup or aggregated statistics.

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?

The description implies usage context through 'Search US trademarks from the USPTO' and lists filterable fields, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'lookup_trademark' (likely for specific trademark lookups) or 'trademark_stats' (likely for aggregated data).

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/carrierone/verilexdata-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server