Skip to main content
Glama
riemannzeta

USPTO Patent MCP Server

by riemannzeta

tm_search_trademarks

Search US federal trademark applications and registrations by mark text, owner, goods/services, class, or status. Use it for clearance searches and mapping a company's trademark portfolio.

Instructions

Search US federal trademark applications and registrations.

USE THIS TOOL WHEN: You need to find trademarks by mark text, owner,
goods/services description, or Nice/international class — e.g.
clearance/knockout searches for a proposed mark, or mapping a company's
trademark portfolio.

NOTE: Backed by the undocumented internal API behind tmsearch.uspto.gov
(the TESS replacement) — same risk profile as PPUBS; may break without
notice. For authoritative status of a specific mark, use
tsdr_get_trademark_status. Federal marks only (no common-law/state marks).

Args:
    query: Raw query string for advanced searches
    mark_text: Word mark text to search (e.g., "ACME")
    owner_name: Owner/applicant name to search
    goods_services: Goods/services description terms (e.g., "athletic
        footwear") — useful for clearance searches across wording
    registration_number: Exact registration number to look up
    international_class: Nice class number 1-45 (e.g., "9" for software;
        use get_trademark_class_info to look up classes)
    status_filter: "live" (active marks), "dead" (abandoned/cancelled/
        expired), or omit for both
    offset: Starting position for pagination (default: 0)
    limit: Maximum results to return (default: 25, max: 100)

Returns:
    Normalized response with matching trademark records.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNo
queryNo
offsetNo
mark_textNo
owner_nameNo
status_filterNo
goods_servicesNo
international_classNo
registration_numberNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description takes on full disclosure burden. It transparently reveals the tool is backed by an undocumented internal API, may break without notice, and has the same risk profile as PPUBS. It also clarifies that results are normalized and covers only federal marks.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is structured with clear headers (summary, USE THIS TOOL WHEN, NOTE, Args, Returns) and every line adds value. It is relatively long but necessarily so given nine undocumented parameters, and it front-loads the core purpose.

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?

Given the tool has 9 optional parameters and no annotations, the description covers use cases, parameter semantics, risk profile, scope limitations, cross-tool guidance, and expected return type. The output schema exists, so detailed return shape is not required.

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?

The input schema has no descriptions (0% coverage), but the description's Args section explains every parameter with concrete examples, defaults, and constraints (e.g., international_class example '9', status_filter values 'live'/'dead', limit max 100). This fully compensates for the schema gap.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Search US federal trademark applications and registrations.' It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools by noting that 'For authoritative status of a specific mark, use tsdr_get_trademark_status' and limiting scope to federal marks only.

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?

The 'USE THIS TOOL WHEN' section explicitly lists common scenarios (clearance/knockout searches, mapping a company's portfolio), names an alternative tool for authoritative status, and warns about the undocumented API risk. It also states exclusions like no common-law/state marks.

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