Skip to main content
Glama

sonar

by app.trysonar

Set Alert Rule

sonar_set_alert

WRITE tool — create or update an alert subscription in the caller's Sonar workspace. Upserts on (type + scope): re-submitting the same type/scope updates the existing rule. Omit threshold for the per-type default; omit scope_app_id for an org-wide rule. Requires an Indie plan (trial counts) and an API key with the write scope.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
typeYesThe alert type to subscribe to.
enabledNoWhether the rule is active. Defaults to enabled when omitted.
thresholdNoSensitivity threshold (meaning depends on type). Omit or null to use the per-type default.
scope_app_idNoLimit the alert to a single app (Sonar app UUID). Omit or null for an org-wide rule covering all tracked apps.

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate write, non-idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds value by explaining the upsert behavior (idempotent effect), parameter defaults, and scope behavior. It does not describe return values, but the absence of an output schema reduces the need. No contradiction 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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the key action ('WRITE tool — create or update'). Every sentence adds essential information without redundancy. Highly efficient.

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?

With 4 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and annotations, the description covers the main behavioral aspects (upsert key, defaults, requirements). It does not explain return values or error conditions, but this is a minor gap given the tool's nature and the lack of an output schema.

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 upsert key (type+scope), how omitting threshold uses defaults, and how omitting scope_app_id makes it org-wide. This is significant added context.

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 clearly states the verb ('create or update') and resource ('alert subscription in the caller's Sonar workspace'). It specifies the upsert behavior and distinguishes from sibling tools like sonar_delete_alert and sonar_list_alerts by focusing on create/update.

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 gives clear context on when to use (create/update alerts) and provides guidance on parameter omission for defaults. It mentions plan and API key requirements. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like sonar_delete_alert, though sibling names are available.

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