Skip to main content
Glama

sonar

by app.trysonar

Track Competitor

sonar_track_competitor

WRITE tool — adds a competitor app under a Sonar product so its keywords and rankings get tracked alongside the product's own app. The product must already have its own app linked in the same store as the competitor. Requires an Indie plan (trial counts) and an API key with the write scope.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
storeYesApp store. "ios" for Apple App Store, "android" for Google Play.
countryNoISO 3166-1 alpha-2 country code (e.g. "us"). Optional — defaults server-side.
store_idYesStore-specific app identifier of the COMPETITOR app to track. iOS: numeric track ID. Android: package name.
product_idYesSonar product UUID (from sonar_create_product). NOT a store id.

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Although annotations mark destructiveHint as false, the description openly declares 'WRITE tool', warning that it modifies data. It also details the prerequisite that the product must be linked in the same store, and mentions specific plan and API key scope requirements. This goes beyond annotations, providing essential behavioral context a mutation tool without annotations might hide.

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, front-loaded paragraph of two sentences. Every phrase carries weight: declaring it a 'WRITE tool', defining its action and target, establishing prerequisites, and requiring plan/scope. No filler 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?

With no output schema, a 4-parameter schema with 100% coverage, and clear sibling tool context, the description fully informs the agent. It covers purpose, when to use, prerequisites, parameter meanings, and behavioral implications of a write operation. Nothing is left ambiguous.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond by clarifying that product_id is a Sonar UUID (not a store id) and that store_id is for the competitor app only. It doesn't elaborate on the optional country parameter beyond what the schema states, but all required parameters are well-contextualized.

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 tool adds a competitor app under a Sonar product for keyword and ranking tracking. It uses a specific verb ('adds'), identifies the resource ('competitor app'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'sonar_remove_competitor' and 'sonar_scan_competitor'.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly tells when to use this tool: the product must already have its own app linked in the same store. It also specifies prerequisites (Indie plan, write scope API key), giving clear context that alternatives like 'sonar_create_product' or 'sonar_track_app' do not. This helps the agent decide to call this tool only after the product is set up.

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