get_patent_pct_national_phase_application_numberResolve a PCT national phase application number from an international application or publication case number for patent records.
Resolve PCT national phase application number.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| relation | Yes | international_application / international_publication | |
| caseNumber | Yes | Case number |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that — no note on how 'relation' changes the resolution, no response shape, no failure mode when the number cannot be resolved. Minimal but not contradictory.
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 short sentence, front-loaded and free of padding. It is efficient, though arguably too terse to earn full marks given the complexity of PCT number resolution.
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 number-resolution tool with two required params and no output schema, the definition omits how the enum relation alters behavior, what is returned, and what happens on failure. With no output schema and a specialized domain, the description should carry more of that burden.
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%, which sets the baseline at 3. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema — it never explains what the 'relation' enum values signify for resolution behavior or what format caseNumber expects.
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 verb (Resolve) and resource (PCT national phase application number), so purpose is identifiable. However, it is vague about what 'resolve' produces (a number lookup? a mapping?) and does not differentiate from siblings like lookup_number_relation or get_patent_divisional_app_info.
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?
No when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives, and nothing about when this resolution path applies versus the sibling lookup_number_relation. The agent must infer usage entirely.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.