Retrieve live USPTO PTAB proceeding details by proceeding number, including parties, involved patent, status, and key dates for case monitoring or analysis.
Get details of a specific PTAB proceeding. Live via USPTO ODP v3.0.
Args:
proceeding_number: Proceeding number (e.g., "IPR2023-00001")
Returns:
Proceeding details including parties, patent, status, and dates.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| proceeding_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_proceedingOutput",
- "type": "object"
-}New value: +nullv1.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the data is live from USPTO ODP v3.0, indicating freshness rather than caching, but says nothing about auth, rate limits, or error behavior for an invalid proceeding number.
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 one-line purpose followed by compact Args/Returns blocks with no filler. The Returns list is slightly generic but earns its place given there is no output schema.
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 full annotation coverage, the description supplies purpose, parameter format, data source freshness, and a summary of returned fields. Little an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.
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 burden, and it delivers a concrete format example ('IPR2023-00001') for the single required parameter. This is genuinely useful for formatting the proceeding number correctly, though it stops short of stating format rules or validation behavior.
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 proceeding') and scopes it to a single proceeding, which distinguishes it from the search-oriented siblings like ptab_search_proceedings. It does not, however, explicitly name those siblings to route the agent.
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?
Usage is only implied: the required proceeding_number argument signals this is for retrieving a known proceeding, versus ptab_search_proceedings for discovery. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or reference to alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.