get_trademark_progress_simpleRetrieve the prosecution progress of a Japanese trademark application using its 10-digit application number. Provides compact status updates from the official JPO API.
Fetch compact 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?
readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read. The description adds that the output is 'compact' and comes from the official JPO API, but never says what compact omits relative to the full tool or whether results are cached/paginated. Useful but thin context beyond annotations.
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 efficient sentence with the resource and source front-loaded and no filler. It is arguably too short to be maximally useful, but nothing is wasted.
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 tool with no output schema and annotation-covered safety, this is minimally adequate. It omits what 'compact' progress actually returns, which is the one thing that would help an agent choose it over get_trademark_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?
Schema coverage is 100% with the 10-digit pattern documented in the schema itself, so the parameter is fully specified without the description. The description adds nothing about the applicationNumber format, so 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 ('trademark prosecution progress') and identifies the source ('official JPO API'). The word 'compact' hints it is the lightweight variant of get_trademark_progress, but it never names that sibling, so differentiation is inferred rather than stated.
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 when-to-use guidance and no mention of the sibling get_trademark_progress, which is the obvious alternative. An agent must guess that 'simple/compact' means use this when a slim payload is preferred.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.