Retrieve build and version metadata for patent datasets, including refresh date, snapshot hash, superseded versions, and table deltas to track changes.
The build in service: data_version, as_of, refreshed_at, snapshot hash, superseded versions, table delta.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It lists data fields, which hints at read-only retrieval, but it never states that the tool has no side effects, whether it reflects the current deployment, or any other behavioral trait.
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?
The description is short, but it is a fragment with a colon-delimited list and no main verb. It is compact yet poorly structured for an agent trying to understand the operation.
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?
With zero parameters and an output schema present, the description need not document return values in detail. However, it still leaves the core operation implicit and does not clarify what the tool actually does beyond exposing a set of fields.
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?
There are zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to add or clarify. The baseline for a no-parameter tool applies.
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 names the resource ('the build in service') and enumerates metadata fields, but it is a sentence fragment with no verb, so the operation must be inferred. It is distinguishable from the unrelated siblings, but the core action is not stated.
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?
There is no guidance on when to call this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist. For a zero-parameter introspection tool usage is somewhat implied, but nothing explicitly routes the agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.