Skip to main content
Glama

sonar

by app.trysonar

Competitor Keywords

sonar_competitor_keywords
Read-only

Keywords a tracked competitor currently ranks for (last 7 days of SERP data), with difficulty and popularity per keyword. Pass own_app_id for gap analysis: keywords where the competitor ranks but your app doesn't are marked gap=missing. Cursor-paginated (default 50 per page). Requires an Indie plan (trial counts).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoPage size (1-200). Server default applies when omitted.
cursorNoPagination cursor from a previous call's `next_cursor`. Omit for the first page.
own_app_idNoSonar app UUID of your own app. When set, each keyword includes your current rank and a gap marker for keywords you don't rank for.
competitor_app_idYesSonar app UUID of the competitor — the `competitor.id` from sonar_track_competitor, or an `id` from sonar_list_apps where is_own is false. NOT a store id.

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description adds recency (last 7 days), pagination details (cursor-paginated, default 50), and a plan requirement (Indie plan). This provides meaningful behavioral context that goes beyond the annotation's simple read-only flag.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, no superfluous text. Every sentence adds essential information (purpose, gap analysis, pagination, plan requirement).

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

Completeness3/5

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

No output schema is provided, so the description must convey what the response contains. It mentions keywords with difficulty and popularity and the gap marker, but does not list other fields like rank position, search volume, or the structure of pagination metadata. Adequate but not fully complete.

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%. The description adds semantic value by explaining that competitor_app_id comes from specific previous tool calls and that own_app_id triggers gap markers. This enhances understanding beyond the parameter descriptions 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 clearly states the tool returns keywords a tracked competitor currently ranks for, including difficulty and popularity. It also highlights the gap analysis feature when passing own_app_id. This distinguishes it from siblings like sonar_app_keywords (own keywords) and sonar_keyword_rankings (general rankings).

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description explains when to use own_app_id for gap analysis and notes the 7-day data window and pagination. It implies the tool is for competitor keyword analysis but does not explicitly exclude alternative tools like sonar_analyze_competitors or sonar_scan_competitor.

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