get_trademark_priority_right_app_infoRetrieve trademark priority-right information for a Japanese trademark application by supplying its 10-digit application number.
Fetch trademark priority-right information.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| applicationNumber | Yes | Japan trademark 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?
The annotation already declares readOnlyHint=true, and the description's verb 'Fetch' is consistent with that. But it adds no behavioral context beyond the annotation: no authorization needs, rate limits, return format, or error semantics are described.
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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple one-parameter lookup, though its extreme brevity borders on under-specification.
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 low-complexity, one-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and a readOnly annotation, the description is minimally adequate. It does not explain what priority-right information is returned or help route between the many sibling tools, but no critical calling information is missing.
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%, and the schema itself fully documents the single applicationNumber parameter including the 10-digit Japan trademark format. The description adds no parameter details, 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?
The description states a clear verb ('Fetch') and resource ('trademark priority-right information'), so an agent can tell what the tool does. However, it does not distinguish this tool from closely named siblings such as get_patent_priority_right_app_info or get_design_priority_right_app_info; only the tool name carries that differentiation.
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?
The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_trademark_progress, get_trademark_registration, or the patent/design priority-right variants. It simply states the purpose, leaving context and exclusions entirely to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.