Skip to main content
Glama

sonar

by app.trysonar

Keyword Metrics

sonar_keyword_metrics
Read-only

Difficulty + popularity for a specific keyword (or up to 25 in bulk). Use this when you already know which keywords you care about — costs 1 credit per keyword. Works without an API key for up to 5 keywords/day (free tier, per IP); an API key removes that cap. Use sonar_keyword_search instead when you want related keyword ideas alongside metrics.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
storeYesApp store. "ios" for Apple App Store, "android" for Google Play.
countryNoISO 3166-1 alpha-2 country code (e.g. "us", "gb", "de"). Default "us".us
keywordNoSingle keyword to fetch metrics for. Use this OR `keywords`, not both.
keywordsNoBulk list of keywords to fetch metrics for (max 25). Use this OR `keyword`, not both. 1 credit per keyword.

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already include readOnlyHint=true, so the non-destructive nature is declared. The description adds useful context: credit cost, free tier limitations, and bulk vs single keyword handling. However, it does not describe what the output format looks like beyond 'difficulty + popularity' (no return schema), leaving uncertainty about response structure. Given annotation coverage, the description adds moderate value but lacks full behavioral detail.

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 three sentences with all content earning its place: the core function is stated immediately, then when-to-use, cost, free tier, key requirement, and sibling differentiation. No fluff or repetition.

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 tool's moderate complexity (optional bulk mode, free tier, credit cost), the description covers: purpose, usage context, cost, free tier limitations, key requirement (no API key for free tier), and sibling alternative. The schema covers all parameters with descriptions. No output schema exists, but 'difficulty + popularity' gives a clear high-level expectation.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining the credit cost per keyword and the free tier cap, which are not in the parameter descriptions. It also clarifies the mutual exclusivity of 'keyword' and 'keywords' (schema says 'Use this OR keywords, not both' but description reinforces bulk vs single usage). This adds genuine value.

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 starts with 'Difficulty + popularity for a specific keyword (or up to 25 in bulk)', which clearly states the action (fetch metrics) and resources (keyword metrics). The sibling list includes 'sonar_keyword_search', and the description explicitly guides differentiation: 'Use sonar_keyword_search instead when you want related keyword ideas alongside metrics.' This distinguishes the tool from similar keyword tools.

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?

The description provides explicit when-to-use ('when you already know which keywords you care about') and when-not-to-use guidance ('Use sonar_keyword_search instead...'), along with cost cap info ('1 credit per keyword', free tier limits) and API key handling. This gives the agent clear decision criteria.

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