Skip to main content
Glama
hsiangjenli

GPSS Patent Search MCP

by hsiangjenli
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

tool_get_examples_tools_get_search_examples_post

Retrieve example GPSS patent search queries to understand keyword and boolean operator usage before running your own Taiwanese patent searches.

Instructions

MCP Tool endpoint for getting search examples.

Responses:

  • 200 (Success): Successful Response

    • Content-Type: application/json

    • Response Properties:

    • Example:

{
  "success": true,
  "examples": {
    "key": "value"
  }
}

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
successYes
examplesYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.3

TDQS

C2.8/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does not meet it. It only restates the HTTP success envelope, saying nothing about whether the examples are static, user-specific, or whether the call has side effects or auth requirements.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The first line is front-loaded, but the bulk of the text is generated response-schema boilerplate that duplicates structured data already present in the output schema. Roughly half the content does not earn its place.

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?

Because an output schema exists, the description need not explain return values, yet it spends its length doing exactly that while omitting what an agent actually needs: what the examples demonstrate and when to consult them. Adequate but with clear gaps for a zero-param discovery tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool takes zero parameters, which is the baseline-4 case; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate beyond what the empty schema already conveys.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

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

The description states a verb+resource ('getting search examples'), so an agent can tell it is a read of example queries. However, it never says what the examples are for or how they relate to the sibling search_patents tool, and the prefix 'MCP Tool endpoint for' is filler rather than specification.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no when-to-use guidance at all: no mention of calling this before search_patents to learn query syntax, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The agent is left to infer the tool's role purely from its name.

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