get_patent_progress_simpleFetch compact patent prosecution progress for a 10-digit Japanese patent application number using the official JPO API.
Fetch compact 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?
readOnlyHint=true already covers the safety profile, so the description only needs to add context. It does note the data comes from the official JPO API and is 'compact', hinting at a reduced payload, but says nothing about rate limits, auth, or what is trimmed versus the full sibling.
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 wasted words; the verb and resource lead the sentence.
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?
No output schema exists, so the description should give some sense of what 'compact progress' returns. Saying it is compact is the only hint; an agent cannot anticipate the returned fields or how they differ from get_patent_progress.
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?
With a single parameter at 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents the 10-digit format and pattern. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline of 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 prosecution progress) with a source qualifier (official JPO API). It does not explicitly explain how it differs from the sibling get_patent_progress, leaving the 'Simple'/'compact' distinction to be inferred from the title.
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 when-to-use guidance and no mention of the obvious alternative, get_patent_progress, nor any prerequisites for obtaining a valid application number. The agent must guess at the selection criteria between this and its near-identical sibling.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.