get_trademark_progressFetch trademark prosecution progress from the official JPO API using a 10-digit Japanese trademark application number.
Fetch trademark prosecution progress from the official JPO API.
| 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 readOnlyHint annotation already declares this as a safe read operation, so the description doesn't need to cover safety. It adds that the data comes from the official JPO API, which is useful context for trust and data freshness, but it doesn't describe response format, error behavior, or rate limits.
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, efficient sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool, though it could be slightly more informative without sacrificing conciseness.
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 read-only tool with one fully described parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it fails to mention the existence of get_trademark_progress_simple or explain what 'prosecution progress' entails, leaving gaps in understanding the tool's scope.
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%, so the single parameter applicationNumber is fully documented in the schema with its pattern. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, which is acceptable when schema coverage is high.
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 (Fetch) and resource (trademark prosecution progress) with the data source (official JPO API). However, it does not differentiate from the sibling get_trademark_progress_simple, leaving ambiguity about which progress tool to use when.
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 is provided on when to use this tool versus the 'simple' variant or any other sibling. The agent must infer usage from the name alone, which is insufficient given the presence of a closely named alternative.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.