Fetch cited-by counts and lists for up to 10 patents in one call, returning each publication number, citation count, citing patents, and citation URL.
Get cited-by counts and lists for multiple patents in a single call. Returns list of {publication_number, cited_by_count, cited_by_patents, cited_by_url}. Max 10 patents per call.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| publication_numbers | Yes | Patent publication numbers (e.g. CN110286864A) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.9.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return shape and the 10-patent limit, and 'Get' implies a read-only operation, but it says nothing about behavior on invalid or unknown publication numbers, partial failures, result ordering, or whether citations include non-patent literature.
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 tight sentences: the first states the operation and the return shape, the second states the hard limit. Nothing is padded, though the field list is dense inline prose that could be marginally cleaner.
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?
With no output schema, the inline return field list ({publication_number, cited_by_count, cited_by_patents, cited_by_url}) is exactly what is needed for the agent to know what comes back, and the batch cap is stated. Missing details about error handling are minor for a simple read tool.
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?
There is a single parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, with the example format (CN110286864A) already documented in the schema. The description adds only the batch-size constraint, which is relevant semantics but not parameter-level clarification beyond the schema.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Get cited-by counts and lists') and scopes it to the batch case with 'for multiple patents in a single call', which implicitly separates it from the sibling get_cited_by. It never names that sibling directly, so the differentiation requires the agent to infer it from the plural framing.
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?
Usage is implied rather than stated: the agent can infer this is for multiple patents, and the 'Max 10 patents per call' constraint tells it when to be careful. However, there is no explicit guidance on choosing this over get_cited_by for a single patent, or what to do when more than 10 numbers are needed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.