Retrieve foreign priority claims for a patent application to determine how they affect the effective filing date.
Get foreign priority claims for an application.
USE THIS TOOL WHEN: You need to find priority claims to foreign
applications that may affect the effective filing date.
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_foreign_priorityOutput",
- "type": "object"
-}New value: +nullv1.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and openWorld, covering the safety profile. The description adds semantic value by explaining the claims may affect the effective filing date, but says nothing about return format or result shape. Given annotation coverage, a 3 is appropriate.
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?
Front-loaded purpose sentence followed by a usage cue and the arg format; nothing is redundant. The "USE THIS TOOL WHEN" header and Args section add slight boilerplate but remain efficient.
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 simple single-param read-only tool, the description covers purpose, when to use it, and the parameter's required format. No output schema exists, but the description needn't explain return values; only a brief hint on returned claim contents would push this higher.
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%, so the description carries the parameter burden. It documents the single param's format ("Application number without slashes") and gives a concrete example ("14412875"), which is exactly the missing detail the schema omits.
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 (Get) and resource (foreign priority claims for an application), which is concrete and unambiguous. It does not name a sibling or explicitly distinguish itself from related tools like odp_get_continuity or odp_get_application, so it stops short of a 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?
"USE THIS TOOL WHEN: You need to find priority claims to foreign applications that may affect the effective filing date" gives a clear triggering condition. It lacks explicit exclusions or named alternatives, so it is clear context rather than full routing guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.