Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
UnClick MCP Server

UnClick MCP Server

by malamutemayhem
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

get_trademark_details

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve details for a specific Australian trademark using its application number to check registration status and related information.

Instructions

Get details for a specific Australian trademark.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "applicationNumber": "<applicationNumber>"
    },
    "name": "get_trademark_details"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
api_keyNo
applicationNumberYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.1.5

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the jurisdictional scope ('Australian') and says nothing about whether an api_key is required, error behavior for unknown numbers, or what data comes back.

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?

A single compact sentence with the resource front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though the terseness is part of why so much is left unspecified.

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

Completeness2/5

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

No output schema exists, so the description should describe the returned detail set, and with 0% schema coverage it should also explain both parameters. Neither is present, leaving an agent unable to predict the response or the identifier format.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning and does not: neither the format/expected shape of applicationNumber nor the role of api_key is explained. The one required identifier is the core of the call and is left undocumented.

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

Purpose4/5

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

States a specific verb ('get details') and resource ('Australian trademark') qualified by 'specific', implying lookup by identifier rather than search. It is distinguishable from search_trademarks in practice, but the description never names or contrasts with that sibling.

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?

'For a specific ... trademark' implies the caller must already have an identifier, but there is no explicit when-to-use, no mention that search_trademarks should be used first to obtain an application number, and no preconditions or exclusions.

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