Retrieve details of a specific PTAB decision by decision ID, such as a trial number like IPR2022-00001, using live USPTO ODP v3.0 data.
Get details of a specific PTAB decision. Live via USPTO ODP v3.0.
Args:
decision_id: Decision identifier (trial number, e.g. IPR2022-00001)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| decision_id | 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_decisionOutput",
- "type": "object"
-}New value: +nullv1.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description adds only a minor data-source note ('Live via USPTO ODP v3.0') and no rate limits, auth needs, or result characteristics; with annotations doing the heavy lifting, this is a modest addition.
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 purpose is front-loaded in one sentence, followed by a compact args block. The 'Args:' formatting is slightly boilerplate for a single parameter, but the format example earns its place.
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 one-parameter read tool with annotations covering safety, the description is nearly sufficient, but with no output schema it never defines what 'details' actually contains, leaving the agent unsure of the response shape.
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% (the property is just 'Decision Id'), so the description must compensate, and it does: it defines the parameter as a decision identifier and supplies a concrete format example ('trial number, e.g. IPR2022-00001'). That is materially more than the schema provides.
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 details of a specific PTAB decision'), which clearly separates it from the sibling search tools like ptab_search_decisions. It does not name any sibling explicitly, but the singular-resource lookup framing makes the boundary obvious.
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, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance is given. The framing implies you already hold a decision identifier, but nothing says how to obtain one (e.g. via ptab_search_decisions) or when this is preferable to search.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.