Retrieve current and historical patent assignment and ownership records by application number to identify who owns or owned a patent or application.
Get patent assignment/ownership records.
USE THIS TOOL WHEN: You need to know current and historical owners
of a patent or application.
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_assignmentOutput",
- "type": "object"
-}New value: +nullv1.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds one useful behavioral fact — that results include historical as well as current owners — but says nothing about permissions, rate limits, or result size.
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?
Three short blocks — purpose, when-to-use, args — with the resource and trigger front-loaded and the parameter format detail last. No sentence is redundant and nothing important is buried.
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?
For a single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, trigger, and parameter format, and clarifies that the target may be a patent or an application. It stops short of describing the returned record's shape or whether results can span multiple assignments.
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 description coverage is 0% and the single parameter has no title-level documentation, so the description must compensate — and it does, specifying 'Application number without slashes' plus a concrete example ('14412875'). That format constraint is exactly the kind of detail an agent would otherwise get wrong.
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 patent assignment/ownership records') and the parenthetical scope 'current and historical owners' clarifies what kind of record. The 'patent' qualifier implicitly separates it from the trademark-side sibling tm_search_assignments, but no sibling is named explicitly, so it falls just short of 5.
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 explicit 'USE THIS TOOL WHEN: You need to know current and historical owners of a patent or application' gives a clear triggering condition. It offers no when-not guidance and names no alternative (e.g., tm_search_assignments for trademarks, or odp_get_application for general bibliographic data), so it stops at 4.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.