get_patent_registrationFetch patent registration data from the official JPO API using a 10-digit application number. Retrieves registration records for known Japanese patent case numbers.
Fetch patent registration information 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 establishes this as a safe read, so the description need not restate that. It adds the provenance detail that the data comes from the official JPO API, which is mild but genuine context (authoritative source vs. derived data). It says nothing about rate limits, caching, or failure modes when the number is not found.
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 short, front-loaded sentence with no filler; the verb and resource come first. It is efficient, though arguably so terse that the registration payload's scope is never hinted at.
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 one-parameter read-only lookup with fully documented input and no output schema, the description is minimally sufficient. It leaves open what 'registration information' actually comprises (registration number, date, status), which the agent cannot recover from annotations or schema.
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%: the single parameter is documented with type, required flag, and a regex pattern plus 'Japan patent application number (10 digits)'. The description adds no format or interpretation detail beyond the schema, so the 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 registration information') plus the data source ('official JPO API'), which cleanly separates it from the trademark and design registration siblings. It does not distinguish itself from other patent-family siblings such as get_patent_progress or get_patent_documents, but the resource is unambiguous.
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, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives among the roughly 27 sibling tools. The agent must infer from the tool name alone that this is for registration (not prosecution/progress/documents) data.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.