Skip to main content
Glama
milaniseb12-png

inpi-marcas-mcp-server

by milaniseb12-png
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Ver detalhe completo de um processo de marca

inpi_get_process_detail
Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve full official INPI trademark process details using the internal CodPedido from a prior search, covering Nice classes, owners, dates, priority, and petition history.

Instructions

Busca o detalhe completo de um processo de marca no pePI (INPI oficial): classes de Nice com especificação, todos os titulares, procurador/representante legal, datas de depósito/concessão/vigência, prioridade unionista e histórico de petições protocoladas.

Precisa do "cod_pedido" (CodPedido), que vem no campo "CodPedido (use em inpi_get_process_detail)" das ferramentas de busca — não é o número do processo público, é um ID interno do pePI.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
cod_pedidoYesCodPedido retornado por uma busca anterior
salvar_htmlNotrue = também salva o resultado como um relatório HTML legível (tabela, sem depender de MCP) em disco e devolve o caminho do arquivo.
salvar_evidenciaNotrue = grava um PACOTE DE EVIDÊNCIA bruta em disco (HTML original do pePI, cópia offline com imagens/CSS baixados, manifest com sha256 de cada arquivo) — pra prova/auditoria, não só leitura. Diferente de salvar_html (que é só um relatório bonito). Sempre vai ao pePI ao vivo, ignorando o cache, porque a evidência precisa do HTML da requisição real.
forcar_atualizacaoNoIgnora o cache local (padrão 6h) e busca de novo no pePI ao vivo.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.2.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / salvar_evidencia
      Added value: +{
+  "default": false,
+  "description": "true = grava um PACOTE DE EVIDÊNCIA bruta em disco (HTML original do pePI, cópia offline com imagens/CSS baixados, manifest com sha256 de cada arquivo) — pra prova/auditoria, não só leitura. Diferente de salvar_html (que é só um relatório bonito). Sempre vai ao pePI ao vivo, ignorando o cache, porque a evidência precisa do HTML da requisição real.",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds that it queries official pePI data and requires an internal CodPedido, but it does not discuss auth, rate limits, or the optional local file-writing behavior beyond what the parameter schema explains.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Two focused paragraphs: the first states what detail is returned, and the second gives the critical ID prerequisite. The field enumeration earns its space by setting expectations, and there is no filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description summarizes the returned content: Nice classes, owners, legal representative, deposit/grant/validity dates, unionist priority, and petition history. Optional save/update behavior is covered by the input schema, so the main context is complete enough.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the optional flags are already documented. The description adds critical meaning for cod_pedido: it comes from a specific search-result field and is an internal pePI ID, not the public process number.

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?

States a specific verb ('Busca') and resource ('detalhe completo de um processo de marca'), enumerates the returned data, and distinguishes itself from search siblings by requiring a CodPedido from prior search results rather than the public process number.

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?

Gives a strong prerequisite: cod_pedido must come from a previous search, and it is not the public process number. It does not explicitly name the alternative sibling to use when only the public process number is available, but the routing context 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

Other Tools