Skip to main content
Glama

sonar

by app.trysonar

Star Keyword

sonar_star_keyword
Idempotent

WRITE tool — stars or unstars a tracked keyword in the caller's Sonar workspace. A star marks the keyword as a favorite/target the user is actively pursuing; starred keywords carry a starred_at timestamp in sonar_app_keywords results. Idempotent: re-starring refreshes the timestamp, unstarring a non-starred keyword is a no-op. Requires an Indie plan (trial counts) and an API key with the write scope.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
starredYestrue to star the keyword (mark as a favorite/target), false to unstar.
tracked_keyword_idYesTracked-keyword UUID — the `id` (not keyword_id) returned by sonar_app_keywords or sonar_track_keywords.

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations provide idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, readOnlyHint=false. The description adds: 'Idempotent: re-starring refreshes the timestamp, unstarring a non-starred keyword is a no-op.' It also discloses plan and scope requirements. 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 purpose ('WRITE tool — stars or unstars'), then behavior, then requirements. Every sentence adds essential information. No wasted words.

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?

For a simple 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, parameters, behavior (idempotence, timestamp), and requirements. It is self-contained and sufficient for an agent to invoke correctly.

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% with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds value by clarifying that tracked_keyword_id is the 'id' (not keyword_id) from specific endpoints. The starred parameter description is redundant but not harmful.

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?

Description explicitly states 'stars or unstars a tracked keyword'. The verb 'star/unstar' and resource 'tracked keyword' are specific and distinct. It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like sonar_track_keywords (which adds tracking) and sonar_update_keyword_note (which updates notes).

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 indicates it's a WRITE tool, notes idempotent behavior (re-starring refreshes, unstarring no-op), and lists requirements (Indie plan, write scope). However, it does not explicitly compare to alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is sufficiently clear.

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