Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
UnClick MCP Server

UnClick MCP Server

by malamutemayhem
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

search_patents

Read-onlyIdempotent

Search Australian patents via IP Australia to find patent records matching a query, with optional status filtering.

Instructions

Search Australian patents via IP Australia.

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": {
      "query": "<query>"
    },
    "name": "search_patents"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
queryYes
statusNo
api_keyNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.1.5

TDQS

C2.6/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the geographic/source scope and says nothing about authentication (the api_key parameter), result limits, pagination, or match behavior — nothing behavioral beyond the annotations.

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 tight sentence with no filler and the resource front-loaded. It is efficient, though its brevity is part of why the other dimensions are thin.

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?

For a 3-parameter search tool with no output schema and no parameter documentation, the description leaves out what fields are returned, how results are ordered or paged, and how the api_key works. An agent could form a query string but could not confidently call it correctly.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0% for all three parameters, so the description carries the full burden and provides none: 'query' syntax, the allowed values of 'status', and whether 'api_key' is the caller's own credential are all undocumented. With a mandatory-looking credential parameter left unexplained, this is a serious gap.

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 clear verb+resource ('Search Australian patents') plus the data source (IP Australia), which distinguishes it from the sibling search_trademarks and get_trademark_details. It does not explicitly name those siblings, so it falls short of the 5 bar.

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 guidance on when to use this versus search_trademarks, no prerequisites, and no explanation of what the 'status' filter means. The agent is left to infer usage entirely from the one-line purpose.

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