Skip to main content
Glama
john-walkoe

USPTO Final Petition Decisions MCP Server

by john-walkoe
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
Python
Remote

Search_petitions_balanced

Search USPTO final petition decisions with advanced filters for detailed analysis, cross-referencing with PFW/PTAB data, and examining petition types, art units, and legal context.

Instructions

Balanced search for Final Petition Decisions with comprehensive fields (10-20 results).

Balanced tier convenience parameters (14 total) - adds 5 advanced filters to minimal tier.

Use for: Detailed petition analysis after minimal search, cross-referencing with PFW/PTAB data, analyzing petition types and legal context. Returns: 18 key fields including petition type, art unit, technology center, prosecution status, legal issues, CFR rules cited, statutes cited, entity status, and invention title.

All Minimal Parameters (9) - same as Search_petitions_minimal:

  • applicant_name, application_number, patent_number

  • decision_type, deciding_office

  • petition_date_start/end, decision_date_start/end

Additional Balanced Parameters (5):

  • petition_type_code: Petition type (e.g., '551' = revival, '182' = restriction)

  • art_unit: Art unit number (e.g., '2128') - enables PFW cross-reference

  • technology_center: Tech center (e.g., '21', '2100')

  • prosecution_status: Status (e.g., 'During examination', 'Patented Case')

  • entity_status: Entity type (e.g., 'Small', 'Large', 'Undiscounted')

Examples:

# Revival petitions (type 551) that were denied
fpd_search_petitions_balanced(petition_type_code="551", decision_type="DENIED", limit=20)

# Complex combination for quality analysis
fpd_search_petitions_balanced(
    art_unit="2128", petition_type_code="551",
    decision_type="DENIED", prosecution_status="During examination", limit=20
)

Progressive Disclosure Workflow:

  1. Discovery: fpd_search_petitions_minimal(decision_type='DENIED', limit=100)

  2. User selects interesting petitions

  3. Analysis: fpd_search_petitions_balanced with advanced filters (art_unit, petition_type_code)

  4. Cross-reference: Use art_unit with PFW, use patentNumber with PTAB

Cross-MCP Integration:

  • applicationNumberText -> pfw_search_applications_minimal with fields parameter for targeted data

  • patentNumber -> ptab_search_proceedings_minimal(patent_number=X)

  • groupArtUnitNumber -> pfw_search_applications_minimal(art_unit=X, fields=[...])

  • firstApplicantName -> Match parties across PFW/PTAB MCPs

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
queryNo
limitNo
offsetNo
applicant_nameNo
application_numberNo
patent_numberNo
decision_typeNo
deciding_officeNo
petition_date_startNo
petition_date_endNo
decision_date_startNo
decision_date_endNo
petition_type_codeNo
art_unitNo
technology_centerNo
prosecution_statusNo
entity_statusNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Tool Definition Quality

A4.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes the tool's behavior: it's a search operation (implied read-only), returns 10-20 results with 18 key fields, and provides specific examples of how to use parameters. However, it doesn't mention potential limitations like rate limits, authentication requirements, or error conditions, which keeps it from a perfect score.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is well-structured with clear sections (purpose, usage, parameters, examples, workflow, integration) and uses bold formatting effectively. While comprehensive, it's somewhat lengthy; every sentence serves a purpose, but some redundancy exists (e.g., repeating parameter lists in different sections). The front-loaded purpose and usage are clear, making it efficient for understanding.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given the complexity (17 parameters, no annotations, 0% schema coverage) and the presence of an output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It explains the tool's purpose, when to use it, all parameters with semantics, provides examples, outlines a workflow, and describes cross-tool integration. The output schema handles return values, so the description appropriately focuses on usage context rather than output details.

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

Parameters5/5

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

With 0% schema description coverage for 17 parameters, the description fully compensates by providing detailed parameter information. It clearly lists all 14 parameters (grouped as 9 minimal and 5 balanced), explains what each represents with examples (e.g., 'petition_type_code: Petition type (e.g., '551' = revival, '182' = restriction)'), and includes practical code examples showing parameter usage, adding substantial value beyond the bare schema.

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 performs a 'balanced search for Final Petition Decisions with comprehensive fields (10-20 results)', specifying both the action (search) and resource (Final Petition Decisions). It explicitly distinguishes from the sibling 'Search_petitions_minimal' by explaining this adds 5 advanced filters to the minimal tier, making the differentiation clear and specific.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool: 'Use for: Detailed petition analysis after minimal search, cross-referencing with PFW/PTAB data, analyzing petition types and legal context.' It also includes a 'Progressive Disclosure Workflow' section that shows how this tool fits into a sequence with the minimal search tool, and mentions cross-MCP integration alternatives, giving comprehensive usage context.

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/john-walkoe/uspto_fpd_mcp'

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