Skip to main content
Glama

sonar

by app.trysonar

Scan Competitor Keywords

sonar_scan_competitor

WRITE tool — runs an AI keyword discovery scan on a tracked competitor: generates the search terms the competitor's listing is optimized for (brand terms included), queues them for SERP verification, and verifies the first batch inline (~30s), recording both apps' ranks. Returns generated/queued/verified_now counts; the rest verify in the background over the following hours — read results with sonar_competitor_keywords. Requires an Indie plan (trial counts) and an API key with the write scope.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
own_app_idYesSonar app UUID of your own app the scan compares against. The competitor must be linked to this app.
competitor_app_idYesSonar app UUID of the competitor to scan — the `competitor.id` from sonar_track_competitor, or an `id` from sonar_list_apps where is_own is false. NOT a store id.

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description goes well beyond annotations: it reveals it is a write tool, outlines the scan workflow (generation, inline verification ~30s, background verification), and notes the returned counts. No contradictions with 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-structured paragraph of ~80 words. It front-loads the key action 'WRITE tool — runs an AI keyword discovery scan' and packs in behavioral, prerequisite, and follow-up information without waste.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Without an output schema, the description covers return values (counts), timeline (inline ~30s, background hours), and references a sibling for reading results. Misses explicit error conditions but is adequate for the tool's complexity.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for each parameter. The main description adds context about the scan process but does not elaborate on parameter specifics beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 specifies the verb 'scan' and resource 'competitor' for AI keyword discovery. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like sonar_competitor_keywords (read results) and sonar_track_competitor (initial tracking).

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 states prerequisites (Indie plan, write scope) and directs users to read results via sonar_competitor_keywords. It implies when to use but does not explicitly exclude alternatives or give when-not guidance.

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