Retrieve the attorney or agent of record for a USPTO patent application using its application number.
Get attorney/agent of record for an 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_attorneyOutput",
- "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 fully covered elsewhere. The description adds nothing behavioral beyond the purpose statement (no data source, no handling of missing attorneys, no freshness/return-shape context). With annotations carrying the burden, the description's contribution here is minimal.
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 two lines and front-loads the purpose before the argument detail. The 'Args:' block is docstring boilerplate but its content (format + example) earns its place; nothing else is wasted.
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-only lookup with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description supplies the essential purpose and the non-obvious input format. Remaining gaps (behavior when no attorney of record exists, data source) are minor for a tool this simple.
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% and the schema only exposes 'app_num' with no description, so the description must compensate. It does so with a concrete format rule ('without slashes') and an example value ('14412875'), which is exactly the kind of input-format detail an agent needs to construct 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?
The description states a specific verb and resource: get the attorney/agent of record for an application. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like odp_get_application or odp_get_assignment, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them. Purpose is unambiguous.
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 use this tool versus related ODP getters, no prerequisites, and no mention of what to do when no attorney is on record. The description only states what the tool does, not when to reach for it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.