get_patent_citationsRetrieve cited patent documents for a Japanese patent application using its 10-digit application number and the official JPO API.
Fetch cited document information for a patent application from the official JPO API.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| applicationNumber | Yes | Japan patent 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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, establishing this as a safe read. The description adds only 'from the official JPO API,' which is provenance rather than behavior — nothing about citation direction, result volume, pagination, or what happens with an unknown application 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?
A single, well-formed sentence with no filler, front-loading the verb and resource. It is efficient, though its brevity partly reflects under-specification rather than disciplined editing.
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 citation-retrieval tool with no output schema and minimal annotations, the description leaves the key semantic question — forward versus backward citations — unanswered, and gives no hint of return shape or coverage. A one-parameter tool needs little, but this omits the distinction that most affects correct use.
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?
Only one parameter exists and schema description coverage is 100%, with the schema documenting the 10-digit Japanese application number and its pattern. Per the baseline rule, the schema doing all the work warrants a 3; the description adds no format or edge-case detail beyond it.
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 (fetch) and resource (cited document information) scoped to a patent application, which separates it from siblings like get_patent_documents or get_design_documents. However, it does not clarify citation direction — whether these are documents the application cites or documents citing it — nor does it name any sibling explicitly.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many adjacent siblings (get_patent_documents, get_patent_global_doc_list, get_patent_global_cite_class). The agent must infer that 'citations' is a distinct workflow from 'documents'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.