sonar_delete_alertWRITE tool — delete an alert subscription in the caller's Sonar workspace. Requires an Indie plan (trial counts) and an API key with the write scope.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The alert subscription UUID — the `id` returned by sonar_list_alerts or sonar_set_alert. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true; the description adds 'WRITE tool' and mentions plan/scope requirements, which are beyond the annotations. It does not contradict annotations. The description could mention irreversibility but the annotations and verb 'delete' suffice. No annotation contradiction.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences: the first states the action and type ('WRITE tool — delete...'), the second gives requirements. Every sentence is essential and there is no wasted text. It is front-loaded with the verb and tool type.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has one parameter, no output schema, and annotations cover safety, the description adequately explains the action, prerequisites, and how to obtain the id. It does not describe the return value, but for a simple delete operation the agent can infer success/failure. The description is sufficient for a low-complexity tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The only parameter 'id' has a full schema description (100% coverage) that explains it is a UUID from sonar_list_alerts or sonar_set_alert. The tool description itself does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'delete', the resource 'alert subscription', and the scope 'in the caller's Sonar workspace'. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like sonar_set_alert and sonar_list_alerts by specifying the deletion action. The title 'Delete Alert Rule' is slightly different but the description clarifies.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides prerequisites (Indie plan, API key with write scope) which help the agent decide whether it can use the tool. It implies usage when the goal is to remove an alert subscription, but does not explicitly state when to use vs alternatives or when not to use it. The sibling list provides context, but the description itself lacks explicit exclusionary guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
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 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.
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.
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.