Skip to main content
Glama
yeyuan98

BioMCP

by yeyuan98
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

patent_get

Read-only

Retrieves patent details by publication number, including abstract, claims, citations, family, and classifications for biomedical research.

Instructions

Get patent details by publication number (e.g. "US11027025B2", "EP3904939B1", "US20260240819A1"). Sections: abstract, claims (US fulltext via USPTO Public Search; EP/WO via EPO OPS when configured, otherwise Google Patents pages — see per-section source fields), citations (backward + forward), family, classifications. US claims may fall back to an unofficial Google Patents rendering when PPUBS is slow or unreachable — flagged in _warnings. Section failures are reported per section (inline error entry plus a _warnings note), never by failing the whole call.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoMax entries per section array
sectionsNoSections to include (default: core only)
patent_idYesPublication number, e.g. "US11027025B2"

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv1.6.0-alpha.10
    • removedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -false
  2. Changed2 schema fields changedv1.6.0-alpha.7
    • addedInput schema / properties / patent_id / minLength
      Added value: +1
    • addedInput schema / properties / patent_id / pattern
      Added value: +"^[A-Z]{2}(?:RE|PP|H)?(?:[ /]*\\d){4,}[ /]*(?:[A-Z][ /]*\\d{0,2})?$"
  3. Addedv0.7.1

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Goes well beyond the readOnly/openWorld annotations: it enumerates available sections, names per-section data sources (USPTO PPUBS, EPO OPS, Google Patents), documents the claim-rendering fallback, explains _warnings flagging, and clarifies that section failures are reported inline rather than failing the whole call. This is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loads the core action and examples, then layers on source/fallback detail. Dense but purposeful; the parenthetical source note and warning behavior each earn their place. Slightly heavy with nested parentheticals.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden and does so: it covers what sections return, how failures degrade gracefully, and how provenance is surfaced. An agent can call this correctly and interpret results without further documentation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning by explaining what each requested section yields and that source provenance varies per section. It doesn't detail the limit parameter's per-array semantics, keeping it just short of the top.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (Get) + resource (patent details) + lookup key (publication number) with concrete format examples. Clearly distinguishes this single-record retrieval from the sibling patent_search.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The 'by publication number' framing implies this is the detail-fetch step after finding an ID, but it never explicitly says to use patent_search first nor states any when-not conditions. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools