get_design_registrationFetches design registration records from the official JPO API by 10-digit Japanese design application number, so you can look up registration details for a known filing.
Fetch design registration information from the official JPO API.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| applicationNumber | Yes | Japan design application number (10 digits) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes this is a safe read, so the bar for the description is lower. It adds the useful detail that data comes from the official JPO API, but says nothing about rate limits, authentication, or error behavior when an application number is not found.
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?
One short sentence with no wasted words and the purpose front-loaded. It is efficient, though arguably too terse given the tool's role relative to its many siblings.
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 single-parameter read tool with annotations covering the safety profile and a fully documented schema, this is minimally adequate. With no output schema, the description could at least indicate what registration data is returned, and it gives no routing signal among the crowded sibling set.
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 coverage is 100% and the single applicationNumber parameter is fully documented in the schema, including the 10-digit pattern. The description adds no syntax, format, or semantic detail beyond that, so baseline 3 applies.
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 clear verb+resource combination ('Fetch design registration information') and names the source (official JPO API). However, it does nothing to distinguish itself from siblings like get_design_documents or get_design_progress, which an agent could easily confuse with it.
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?
The description offers no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives among the many sibling tools. An agent must infer that this is the tool for registration-status lookups rather than documents or progress.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.