Skip to main content
Glama
milaniseb12-png

inpi-marcas-mcp-server

by milaniseb12-png
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Buscar marca por número de processo

inpi_search_by_process_number
Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve a specific Brazilian trademark process from INPI's pePI using a process, GRU, petition protocol, or Madrid international registration number. Returns number, mark, status, owner, and class.

Instructions

Busca uma marca no pePI (INPI oficial) por número de processo, GRU, protocolo de petição ou inscrição internacional (Protocolo de Madri). Use exatamente um desses números — é a forma mais direta de achar um processo específico quando você já sabe o número.

Retorna o(s) processo(s) encontrado(s) com número, marca, situação, titular e classe. Para o detalhe completo (classes, titulares, datas, petições), use inpi_get_process_detail com o CodPedido retornado.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
numero_gruNoNúmero da GRU (Guia de Recolhimento da União)
salvar_htmlNotrue = também salva o resultado como um relatório HTML legível (tabela, sem depender de MCP) em disco e devolve o caminho do arquivo.
numero_processoNoNúmero do processo/pedido, ex: 821480880
numero_protocoloNoNúmero do protocolo de petição
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.
numero_inscricao_internacionalNoNúmero da inscrição internacional (Protocolo de Madri)

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 this as a read-only, idempotent, open-world, non-destructive operation, so the safety bar is met structurally. The description adds value beyond that by listing the fields returned (número, marca, situação, titular, classe) and by pointing to the detail tool, useful since there is no output schema.

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 short paragraphs: the first front-loads the identifier constraint, the second states return fields and the escalation path. No filler, every sentence earns its place.

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 adequately covers the return shape and the hand-off to inpi_get_process_detail. Caching and evidence-save behavior live in the schema parameter docs, so nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds a constraint the schema does not convey: the identifier parameters are mutually exclusive and exactly one must be supplied (all are individually optional in the schema, with no oneOf). That is genuine semantic value beyond the structured fields.

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 (marca no pePI) plus the four accepted identifier types, and distinguishes itself by routing detail lookups to inpi_get_process_detail. An agent can tell it apart from the broader search siblings (by_mark, by_owner) without opening a schema.

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?

Explicitly says to use exactly one of these numbers and that this is the most direct way when you already know the number. It names the follow-up alternative (inpi_get_process_detail), but gives no guidance for the reverse case (what to use when you don't know the number), which the other search_* siblings cover.

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