Retrieve details of a specific ex parte appeal decision from USPTO ODP v3.0 by providing an appeal number.
Get details of a specific ex parte appeal decision. Live via USPTO ODP v3.0.
Args:
appeal_number: Appeal number
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| appeal_number | 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": "ptab_get_appealOutput",
- "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. The description adds only 'Live via USPTO ODP v3.0', which hints at a real-time upstream source but says nothing about auth requirements, rate limits, caching, or what the response contains.
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 core sentence is short and front-loaded, with no filler. The trailing 'Args:' block is redundant with the input schema and could be dropped, but the overall footprint is appropriately small.
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, so the description is responsible for conveying what 'details' means and what comes back; it does not. Combined with a 0%-documented single parameter, the definition is too thin for an agent to invoke confidently.
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 must carry the parameter burden, yet it merely restates the schema title ('appeal_number: Appeal number'). It gives no format or example (e.g., the expected appeal number pattern), which is the one thing an agent actually needs here.
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 (details of a specific ex parte appeal decision), which distinguishes it from search-oriented siblings like ptab_search_appeals and ptab_search_decisions. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the nearby ptab_get_decision or ptab_get_proceeding, so the boundary is only partly drawn.
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?
No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternatives. The closest thing to context is the provenance note 'Live via USPTO ODP v3.0', which tells the agent nothing about when this tool is the right choice over ptab_get_decision or ptab_search_appeals.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.