get_patent_progressRetrieve patent prosecution progress from the official JPO API using a 10-digit Japanese patent application number. Track examination status and case milestones for known applications.
Fetch patent prosecution progress 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, so safety is covered. The description adds the useful detail that data comes from the official JPO API (relevant for freshness/authority expectations), but says nothing about latency, rate limits, or response shape.
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 sentence, front-loaded with the core action and resource, with no filler. Nothing could be removed without losing information.
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 full schema coverage and a clear readOnly annotation, the description is minimally sufficient. The notable gap is the lack of differentiation from get_patent_progress_simple, which an agent needs to pick the right sibling.
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 parameter is fully documented with pattern and format, so the schema carries the load. The description adds no parameter detail beyond what the schema already provides, making the baseline 3 appropriate.
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?
The description states a specific verb+resource ('fetch patent prosecution progress') and names the source ('official JPO API'). It does not differentiate from the obvious sibling get_patent_progress_simple, so it falls short of a 5.
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 at all on when to use this versus get_patent_progress_simple or the other patent siblings. The agent is left to infer that the non-simple variant is the fuller one, which is exactly the kind of distinction an explicit sentence could settle.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.