Skip to main content
Glama
riemannzeta

USPTO Patent MCP Server

by riemannzeta
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

ppubs_search_patents

Read-onlyIdempotent

Search granted US patents in USPTO Patent Public Search using full-text BRS queries, with daily updates to find recent filings and narrow by fields.

Instructions

Search granted US patents in Patent Public Search (ppubs.uspto.gov).

USE THIS TOOL WHEN: You need full-text search of US patents with daily
updates, or need access to the most recent patent filings.

Args:
    query: Search query using USPTO BRS syntax. Multi-word terms are
           AND-ed across all fields by default — quote phrases that
           must appear together. Examples:
           - '"machine learning"' - exact phrase, all fields
           - machine learning - both terms anywhere (AND)
           - '"neural network".ti.' - title contains phrase
           - smith.in. AND IBM.as. - inventor Smith, assignee IBM
           - G06N3/08.cpc. - CPC classification
           Field qualifiers are dotted suffixes (.ti., .ab., .in.,
           .as., .cpc., .pn.) — the legacy slash-prefix forms
           (TTL/, IN/, AN/, CPC/) no longer work: they silently
           return 0 results, and TTL/"phrase" returns a server 500.
           Default `sort="date_publ desc"` means broad queries return
           the latest grants first — narrow with field qualifiers
           to get relevant matches.
    offset: Starting position for pagination (default: 0)
    limit: Maximum results to return (default: 20, max: 500). Results
           over the token budget are cut to 20 anyway, so raise this
           only when paging with `offset`.
    sort: Sort order (default: "date_publ desc")

Returns:
    Normalized response with patent results including GUID, title,
    abstract, dates, inventors, and classification codes.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
sortNodate_publ desc
limitNo
queryYes
offsetNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv1.8.1
    • changedInput schema / properties / limit / default
      Previous value: -100New value: +20
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -{
-  "properties": {
-    "result": {
-      "additionalProperties": true,
-      "title": "Result",
-      "type": "object"
-    }
-  },
-  "required": [
-    "result"
-  ],
-  "title": "ppubs_search_patentsOutput",
-  "type": "object"
-}New value: +null
  2. First observedv1.1.1

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already establish this as a safe, idempotent, read-only operation, yet the description adds real operational context the annotations cannot: legacy slash-prefix syntax silently returns 0 results and TTL/"phrase" triggers a server 500, and results exceeding the token budget are truncated to 20 regardless of the limit. These are exactly the failure modes an agent needs warned about.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Well front-loaded with clear USE THIS TOOL WHEN / Args / Returns sections, and the syntax examples are genuinely load-bearing. Minor redundancy: the 'date_publ desc' default and its effect on broad queries are restated after already appearing in the sort arg line.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema and no schema descriptions, the description compensates fully: query grammar, pagination strategy, result caps, sort semantics, and a short Returns summary of fields (GUID, title, abstract, dates, inventors, classifications). An agent has everything needed to call this correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must carry all four parameters, and it does: query is documented with BRS field qualifiers (.ti., .ab., .in., .as., .cpc., .pn.) and worked examples, plus default AND behavior; offset, limit (default 20, max 500, with truncation caveat) and sort (default 'date_publ desc') are each explained. This is far beyond what the bare schema provides.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Search granted US patents in Patent Public Search'), with scope narrowed to granted patents and full-text coverage, which implicitly separates it from the applications sibling. It never names ppubs_search_applications or ppubs_get_patent_by_number explicitly, so differentiation still requires the agent to infer from 'granted' vs 'applications'.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The 'USE THIS TOOL WHEN' block gives clear triggering conditions: full-text US patent search with daily updates, or access to the most recent filings. However, it offers no when-not guidance and does not name alternatives (e.g., ppubs_get_patent_by_number for known-number lookups), leaving the agent to infer the boundary.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools