USPTO Patent Citation MCP Server

Citations_get_citation_details

Citations_get_citation_details

Read-only

Retrieves complete metadata for a specific patent citation by ID, including cited passages, locator details, mapped claims, and quality summary for strategic analysis.

Instructions

Get complete details for specific citation by ID. Full record for one citation, all fields, cited passage, column and line locator, figure, mapped claim, quality summary.

Use for deep analysis of strategically important citations. Full record with all fields and complete citing context.

⚠️ IMPORTANT: Returns citation METADATA only, NOT actual documents.

2-STEP PFW MCP WORKFLOW: Step 1: PFW_get_application_documents(app_number='{app_number}', document_code='CTNF', limit=20)

Document Code Decoder:

CTNF: Non-Final Office Action (where most citations appear — start here)
CTFR: Final Office Action Rejection
NOA: Notice of Allowance
892: Examiner's Search Strategy & Citations List
IDS: Applicant's Information Disclosure Statement

Step 2a (LLM analysis): PFW_get_document_content_with_ocr(app_number, document_identifier) → Extract text for analysis Step 2b (User download): PFW_get_document_download(app_number, document_identifier) → PDF download link

For complete cross-MCP workflows, use Citations_get_guidance(section='workflows_pfw') for detailed integration patterns.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`citation_id`	Yes
`include_context`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Sep 21, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description adds the important behavioral limitation that it returns citation metadata only and NOT actual documents. It also provides a concrete 2-step workflow for retrieving document content and downloads through related tools, which meaningfully discloses what this tool does not do and how to supplement it.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

The opening sentence is clear and front-loaded, but the description repeats the 'full record' idea and includes a long PFW workflow and document code decoder that are tangential to this tool's immediate invocation. The content is structured, but much of it could be moved to guidance content rather than the tool description.

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?

The description covers the tool's primary caveat and cross-tool workflow, and an output schema exists, so return structure does not need to be explained. However, it omits explicit parameter semantics and does not clearly guide the agent from a search result to this tool's citation_id input, leaving some context incomplete.

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?

There is zero schema description coverage, and the description does not explain citation_id or include_context. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description fails to compensate for the missing schema details, especially what include_context toggles or how the ID should be supplied.

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 tool retrieves complete details for a specific citation by ID, enumerates the content returned (all fields, cited passage, locators, figure, mapped claim, quality summary), and distinguishes it from the sibling search tools by focusing on ID-based retrieval.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description explicitly says to use it for deep analysis of strategically important citations and makes clear it is for looking up an existing citation by ID. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling search tools or state when not to use it, but the intended use case is clear.

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

Deploy Server