Trace patent application lineage by retrieving parent and child applications, including continuations, divisionals, and CIPs.
Get continuity (parent/child application chain) data for a patent application. Shows parent applications (continuations, divisionals, CIPs) and child applications.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| application_number | Yes | Application number |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2026.4.11Input schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -falsev2026.3.9Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the tool is safe and non-destructive. The description adds the detail that it shows parent and child applications, which is useful context beyond annotations, but it doesn't disclose anything about data completeness, potential missing chain links, or required numeric format.
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 sentences that are direct and informative. It front-loads the main purpose and clearly explains the output. No extraneous words.
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?
Given the simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is adequate. However, it would benefit from a note on the expected input format (e.g., serial number with leading zeros) and possibly what to do if no continuity data is found. But overall, it is reasonably complete for this 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the only parameter 'application_number' is fully documented. The description implicitly indicates this is an application number, but it does not provide additional format or example. Baseline 3 is appropriate given full schema coverage.
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?
The description states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('continuity data for a patent application'), and clarifies what it shows (parent and child applications). It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'uspto_application_details' or 'uspto_application_assignments', but the focus on continuity is distinct.
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?
The description implies it is used when you need continuity data for an application, but it does not explicitly state when to use alternatives such as 'uspto_application_details' for general details or 'uspto_application_assignments' for assignments. There is no when-not-to-use guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.