Retrieve detailed metadata for a USPTO patent application, including examiner info, art unit, and status, by application number.
Get detailed metadata for a patent application.
USE THIS TOOL WHEN: You need comprehensive application metadata
including examiner info, art unit, and detailed status.
Args:
app_num: Application number without slashes (e.g., "14412875")
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| app_num | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.8.1Output schema / (root)Previous value: -{
- "properties": {
- "result": {
- "additionalProperties": true,
- "title": "Result",
- "type": "object"
- }
- },
- "required": [
- "result"
- ],
- "title": "odp_get_application_metadataOutput",
- "type": "object"
-}New value: +nullv1.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds only that the payload includes examiner/art-unit/status content; it says nothing about auth requirements, rate limits, or error behavior on invalid application numbers.
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?
Short and front-loaded: the purpose sentence comes first, followed by the usage condition and parameter note. The 'Args:' boilerplate is slightly redundant but the example earns its place.
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?
There is no output schema, and the description partially fills that gap by naming the returned fields (examiner info, art unit, status). For a single-parameter read tool this is largely sufficient, with the main omission being how it differs from odp_get_application.
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?
Schema coverage is 0% – the schema only declares a string with no description. The description compensates by specifying the format constraint ('without slashes') and a concrete example ('14412875'), which is exactly the detail an agent needs to form a valid call.
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?
States a specific verb and resource: 'Get detailed metadata for a patent application'. The 'detailed' qualifier hints at depth, but the description never distinguishes this from the sibling odp_get_application, so an agent must guess which metadata tool to pick.
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?
The 'USE THIS TOOL WHEN' block gives a clear triggering condition and enumerates what the response covers (examiner info, art unit, detailed status). It stops short of naming an alternative or stating when not to use it, which matters given the near-identical sibling odp_get_application.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.