Skip to main content
Glama
riemannzeta

USPTO Patent MCP Server

by riemannzeta

ptab_search_proceedings

Search Patent Trial and Appeal Board proceedings (IPR, PGR, CBM, DER) by trial type, patent number, party, filing date, or status to find patent validity challenges.

Instructions

Search PTAB trial proceedings (IPR, PGR, CBM, derivation).

USE THIS TOOL WHEN: You need to find patent validity challenges at
the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Live via USPTO ODP v3.0.

Trial types:
- IPR: Inter Partes Review (most common, based on patents/publications)
- PGR: Post-Grant Review (broader grounds, within 9 months of grant)
- CBM: Covered Business Method (for financial method patents, sunsetted)
- DER: Derivation proceedings

Args:
    query: Full-text search query
    trial_type: Type of trial (IPR, PGR, CBM, DER)
    patent_number: Patent number being challenged
    party_name: Petitioner or patent owner name
    filing_date_from: Filing date range start (YYYY-MM-DD)
    filing_date_to: Filing date range end (YYYY-MM-DD)
    status: Proceeding status (Pending, Instituted, Terminated, FWD Entered)
    offset: Starting position (default: 0)
    limit: Max results (default: 25)

Returns:
    Normalized response with matching proceedings.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNo
queryNo
offsetNo
statusNo
party_nameNo
trial_typeNo
patent_numberNo
filing_date_toNo
filing_date_fromNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It notes 'Live via USPTO ODP v3.0' and that results are 'Normalized response,' but doesn't cover pagination behavior, rate limits, or what 'normalized' means. Adequate but not rich.

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-structured with sections, front-loaded purpose, then usage, args, returns. The trial type explanations are a bit long but add real value. No redundancy.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a 9-param search tool with no annotationsede e 0% schema coverage, the description covers all parameters, gives usage context, and notes the live data source. Output is abstractly described but output schema exists to fill gaps. Minor missing: no pagination or rate limit warnings, but offset/limit are self-explanatory.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema has 0% description coverage意識, but the description compensates by listing all 9 arguments with brief meanings (e.g., 'Filing date range start'). It adds clarity for trial type values (IPR, PGR, CBM, DER) and status examples.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Search PTAB trial proceedings (IPR, PGR, CBM, derivation)'. It uses a specific verb ('Search') with a clear resource ('PTAB trial proceedings') and enumerates the covered trial types, distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'ptab_get_proceeding' (which retrieves a specific proceeding) and 'ptab_search_appeals'.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicit usage guidance: 'USE THIS TOOL WHEN: You need to find patent validity challenges at the Patent and Appeal Board.' It also explains each trial type (IPR, PGR, CBM, derivation) so the agent knows what each means, and the phrase 'Live via USPTO ODP v3.0' gives context. Distinguishes from siblings via search-vs-get and trial type coverage.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/riemannzeta/patent_mcp_server'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server