get_patent_priority_right_app_infoRetrieve patent priority-right application information from JPO records by supplying a 10-digit Japanese patent application number.
Fetch patent priority-right information.
| 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?
readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, and the description adds nothing beyond it — no indication of what data is returned, latency, pagination, or coverage limits. For a retrieval tool with annotation coverage the bar is lower, but zero added context leaves it thin.
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 no filler or redundancy. Efficient, though its brevity borders on under-specification rather than concise richness.
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 simple one-parameter read with annotations and a fully covered schema, the description is minimally viable. It omits any usage context or explanation of the returned priority-right concept, but no output schema exists that would otherwise need explaining.
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 (10-digit Japan patent application number) in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning, 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 specific verb ('Fetch') and resource ('patent priority-right information'), and the 'patent' qualifier distinguishes it from the design and trademark priority-right siblings. It does not, however, explain what priority-right information comprises or how it differs from the many other patent retrieval siblings.
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 guidance on when to use this tool, no prerequisites, and no named alternatives among the 25+ sibling retrieval tools. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.