Skip to main content
Glama

sonar

by app.trysonar

Look Up App

sonar_app_lookup
Read-only

Look up a single app by its store ID. Returns app metadata including name, developer, category, rating, reviews, installs (Android), and price. Works without an API key (free tier, limited daily use per IP).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
storeYesApp store. "ios" for Apple App Store, "android" for Google Play.
countryNoISO 3166-1 alpha-2 country code (e.g. "us", "gb", "de"). Default "us".us
store_idYesStore-specific app identifier. iOS: numeric track ID (e.g. "123456789"). Android: package name (e.g. "com.spotify.music").

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The description adds behavioral traits beyond the readOnlyHint annotation: it specifies the exact metadata fields returned (name, developer, category, rating, reviews, installs, price), the free tier requirement, and the per-IP daily limit. It does not detail error handling or response format, but the disclosed traits are valuable for agent decision-making.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is three sentences, all front-loaded with the most important information first. Every sentence provides essential context: what it does, what it returns, and the notable free tier condition. No unnecessary words or redundancy.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given the tool's low complexity (3 parameters, no output schema) and the presence of annotations, the description is fairly complete. It covers the lookup purpose, return fields, and usage constraints. It does not describe the exact response structure, but the listed fields give sufficient guidance for an agent to interpret the output. The free tier note addresses a critical behavioral aspect.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the overall purpose of the parameters (lookup by store ID) and listing the returned metadata fields, which helps the agent understand what the parameters will produce. It also notes the free tier limitation, which is not in the schema.

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?

The description explicitly states 'Look up a single app by its store ID', using a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like sonar_app_search (search) and sonar_list_apps (list) by focusing on a single app lookup by store ID. The inclusion of the free tier note adds unique context.

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 description implies usage when you have a store ID and want metadata, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as sonar_get_app or sonar_app_search. No exclusion criteria or alternative tool names are mentioned. The free tier note is a constraint, not a usage guideline.

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

All sonar toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct action or data aspect within the ASO domain. Keyword-related tools are clearly separated by purpose (tracked keywords vs. research vs. suggestions vs. metrics), and competitive tools differentiate between reading landscape and generating new analysis. No two tools have overlapping functionality that would confuse an agent.

Naming Consistency3/5

Naming is a mix of verb-first (e.g., sonar_add_screenshot, sonar_create_product) and noun-first patterns (e.g., sonar_app_keywords, sonar_competitor_landscape). While all use snake_case and the 'sonar_' prefix is consistent, the lack of a uniform verb_noun structure makes it harder to predict tool names. The pattern is readable but inconsistent.

Tool Count2/5

With 47 tools, the server is over-scoped for a typical MCP server. Although the ASO domain is broad, many tools are granular (e.g., 10 screenshot tools, 10 keyword tools). This quantity exceeds the 25+ threshold for 'too many' as defined in the calibration, making it heavy for an agent to navigate comprehensively.

Completeness5/5

The tool surface covers the full ASO lifecycle: app discovery, keyword research, tracking and ranking, competitor analysis, revenue estimation, screenshot creation and export, alerts, and product management. There are no obvious gaps—every necessary operation for monitoring and optimizing app store presence is present, including both read and write actions.

Resources