sonar_remove_competitorWRITE tool — remove a competitor from a product in the caller's Sonar workspace. Requires an Indie plan (trial counts) and an API key with the write scope.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| product_id | Yes | Sonar product UUID — the `id` returned by sonar_list_products or sonar_create_product. | |
| competitor_app_id | Yes | Sonar app UUID of the competitor to remove (the competitor's `id`, NOT a store id). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds value by calling it a 'WRITE tool' and specifying the required plan and scope, which are behavioral constraints beyond what annotations convey. It does not contradict annotations. It could further disclose whether the removal is reversible or affects other data, but overall the transparency is good.
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, front-loading the critical 'WRITE tool' label and immediately stating the action and scope. Every piece of information is necessary and no words are wasted. It is optimally concise for an AI agent to parse.
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?
The tool is simple (two required parameters, no output schema) and the description covers the action, requirements, and parameter sources. It does not describe the return value or confirm success/failure, but for a removal operation this is acceptable. The schema descriptions and annotations fill most gaps, making the definition sufficiently complete.
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 description coverage is 100%, with both parameters (product_id, competitor_app_id) having clear, self-contained descriptions referencing other tools (e.g., 'sonar_list_products' for id). The tool's description does not add any additional parameter details beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 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 'remove' and the resource 'a competitor from a product in the caller's Sonar workspace.' It explicitly labels itself as a 'WRITE tool,' which distinguishes it from read-only sibling tools like sonar_competitor_keywords or sonar_app_lookup. Compared to other competitor-related tools (e.g., sonar_track_competitor, sonar_scan_competitor), the purpose is unique and unambiguous.
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 usage context by stating it requires an 'Indie plan (trial counts)' and an 'API key with the write scope,' which informs prerequisites. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like sonar_untrack_app or sonar_delete_product, nor does it advise when not to use it. The action is self-explanatory, so the guidance is mostly adequate but lacks exclusions.
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.