Skip to main content
Glama

sonar

by app.trysonar

App Rank History

sonar_app_rankings
Read-only

Rank history for an app's tracked keywords — daily ranks over the requested window, one history array per keyword. Use this to check how rankings moved after a metadata change or to find keywords trending up or down. Cursor-paginated over keywords (default 50 per page). Requires an Indie plan (trial counts).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
daysNoHistory window in days (1-365). Default 30.
limitNoPage size (1-200). Server default applies when omitted.
app_idYesSonar app UUID — the `id` returned by sonar_list_apps or sonar_create_product. NOT a store id.
cursorNoPagination cursor from a previous call's `next_cursor`. Omit for the first page.
keyword_idNoRestrict to one keyword — a keyword_id from sonar_app_keywords. Omit for all tracked keywords.

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The readOnlyHint annotation is present, and the description reinforces this by stating it provides 'rank history' – a read operation. It adds behavioral details beyond annotations: pagination over keywords, daily ranks, and plan requirement. No contradictions found.

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 extremely concise (3 sentences) yet packs crucial information: the resource (rank history), output structure (one array per keyword), use cases, pagination, and plan requirement. Every sentence earns its place with no fluff.

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?

Given the 5 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and readOnly annotation, the description covers all key aspects: purpose, usage in context, pagination, parameter semantics, and access requirements. No output schema exists, but the description clarifies return shape ('daily ranks', 'one history array per keyword'). Complete for this tool's complexity.

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 description coverage is 100% with detailed parameter descriptions (e.g., app_id is NOT a store id, cursor is from previous call's next_cursor). The description adds useful semantic guidance: 'restrict to one keyword' for keyword_id, and the mention of 'default 50 per page' complements the limit parameter but doesn't repeat schema. Value for parameters is high.

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 clearly states it provides 'rank history for an app's tracked keywords' with daily ranks over a requested window, one history per keyword. This uniquely identifies it among siblings like sonar_app_reviews, sonar_keyword_rankings, and sonar_app_changes, as it focuses specifically on rank history per keyword.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

It explicitly states when to use this tool: 'to check how rankings moved after a metadata change or to find keywords trending up or down'. It also describes pagination (cursor-paginated, default 50 per page) and a prerequisite (requires an Indie plan, trial counts), which helps the agent understand context and limitations.

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