Skip to main content
Glama

sonar

by app.trysonar

Competitor Landscape

sonar_competitor_landscape
Read-only

The full competitive keyword picture for one of your own apps vs every tracked competitor, in one call: live stats (keyword gaps where competitors rank and you don't, winnable gaps, competitors climbing on your tracked keywords, keywords you lead), the top gap/threat/lead rows with metrics, and the latest AI insight if one was generated (opportunity clusters, threat narratives, strengths, posture). Read this before deciding which keywords to target next. Requires an Indie plan (trial counts).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
app_idYesSonar app UUID of YOUR OWN tracked app (an `id` from sonar_list_apps where is_own is true). NOT a store id, NOT a competitor id.

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true (safe read). The description adds value by disclosing that the AI insight is optional ('if one was generated') and describes the nature of the output data. It avoids contradictions and provides enough behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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 a single, well-organized paragraph of about four sentences. It front-loads the core value proposition, then details the outputs, adds usage guidance, and notes the plan requirement. Every sentence earns its place with zero 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?

Despite having no output schema, the description thoroughly enumerates the return values: stat categories, top rows with metrics, and AI insight structure. Combined with strong parameter semantics and annotations, it provides a complete mental model for the agent to invoke and interpret results.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema coverage is 100% and the description adds significant meaning: it clarifies that app_id must be 'YOUR OWN tracked app' from sonar_list_apps, and explicitly says 'NOT a store id, NOT a competitor id.' This prevents misuse beyond what the raw schema provides.

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 provides 'the full competitive keyword picture for one of your own apps vs every tracked competitor, in one call.' It then spells out the exact outputs (live stats, top rows, AI insight). This distinguishes it from simpler siblings (e.g., sonar_competitor_keywords) by emphasizing its comprehensive, consolidated nature.

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 instructs users to 'Read this before deciding which keywords to target next,' establishing a clear when-to-use context. It also notes the prerequisite 'Requires an Indie plan (trial counts).' While it does not explicitly list alternative tools for when not to use it, the guidance is strong enough to steer initial decision-making.

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