sonar_screenshot_layout_guideThe layout-format reference for Sonar screenshot sets. Call this ONCE before creating or editing screenshot layouts — it documents the layout JSON schema, coordinate system, image handling (remote URLs), flowing background shapes, fonts, translation overrides, and the recommended workflow.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true. The description adds behavioral context beyond that by stating it is a reference that documents the layout format, coordinate system, and workflow. There is no contradiction with annotations. The description covers the tool's read-only nature and what it contains.
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-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value: the first defines what the tool documents, the second provides the usage directive. No wasted words. Excellent conciseness.
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 zero parameters, no output schema, and clear annotations (readOnlyHint), the description fully covers what an agent needs: what the tool provides (layout JSON schema, coordinate system, etc.) and when to call it. No gaps remain for this simple reference 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 tool has zero parameters and schema description coverage is 100% (empty object). With no parameters, the description bears no burden to document parameter meaning. Baseline score of 4 is appropriate as the description adds no parameter info but none is needed.
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 documents the layout JSON schema, coordinate system, image handling, and workflow for Screenshot layouts. It uses a specific verb ('call this ONCE before creating or editing screenshot layouts') and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like sonar_add_screenshot or sonar_update_screenshot by being a reference guide rather than a mutation tool.
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 explicitly says 'call this ONCE before creating or editing screenshot layouts', providing clear when-to-use guidance. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, the imperative instruction is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly before layout-related operations.
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.