get_jplatpat_permalinkResolve the official J-PlatPat fixed address for a patent, design, or trademark application from its domain and 10-digit Japan application number.
Resolve the official J-PlatPat fixed address for a patent, design, or trademark application.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domain | Yes | patent / design / trademark | |
| applicationNumber | Yes | Japan 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 signals a safe read operation, so the description doesn't need to restate that. It adds the useful context that the output is an 'official fixed address' (a permanent link), but omits the return format, whether the link is stable/expiring, and any failure behavior when an application isn't 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?
A single front-loaded sentence with a clear verb and scope, no filler or redundancy. Every word 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?
With no output schema, the description should clarify what is returned (a URL string) and its stability, which it only gestures at with 'fixed address'. For a two-parameter read tool this is adequate but leaves a minor gap about the return value.
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 100%, so the enum (patent/design/trademark) and the 10-digit application number pattern are fully documented in the schema. The description only restates the resource types, adding no syntax or format detail beyond the structured fields; 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 specific verb (resolve) and resource (official J-PlatPat fixed address/permalink) scoped to patent, design, or trademark applications. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that fetch documents, progress, or registration data, though it doesn't explicitly name a sibling it contrasts with.
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 implied by the name and purpose (look up a stable link for an application), but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or pointer to alternatives such as the family/document tools. An agent can infer intent but gets no routing guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.