sonar_delete_screenshotDelete one screen from a screenshot set. A set keeps at least one screen — deleting the last one is rejected. Requires a write-scope API key.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| screenshot_id | Yes | Screen id to delete. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the agent knows it's destructive. The description adds useful context that the last screen cannot be deleted and that a write-scope API key is required. This supplements the annotations without contradicting them.
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?
Three sentences, each earning its place: states the action, adds a critical constraint, and notes the auth requirement. No filler, highly efficient.
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 a single parameter, full schema coverage, no output schema, and annotations already covering the destructive nature, the description adequately covers the key behaviors. It could optionally mention that the operation is idempotent (as hinted by idempotentHint), but that's already in annotations. Overall, sufficient for agent use.
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?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the screenshot_id parameter. The description does not add extra meaning beyond what the schema's description ('Screen id to delete') 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 it deletes one screen from a screenshot set, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like sonar_delete_screenshot_set and sonar_delete_product. The verb 'delete' plus the resource 'screen from a screenshot set' is specific and leaves little ambiguity.
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 notes that deleting the last screen is rejected, which provides an important constraint. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives like updating a screenshot set or adding a screenshot, nor does it mention prerequisites such as needing the screenshot set ID.
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.