Skip to main content
Glama

sonar

by app.trysonar

Track Keywords

sonar_track_keywords

WRITE tool — starts daily rank tracking for one or more keywords on an app in the caller's Sonar workspace. Idempotent: re-posting the same terms reports them as already_tracked instead of creating duplicates. Returns per-keyword outcomes (created / already_tracked / failed). Requires an Indie plan (trial counts) and an API key with the write scope.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
app_idYesSonar app UUID — the `apps[].id` returned by sonar_create_product (or sonar_track_app). NOT a store id; the store is implied by the app.
countryNoISO 3166-1 alpha-2 country code (e.g. "us"). Optional — defaults to the product's country.
keywordsYesKeywords to start tracking (1-200). Duplicates and already-tracked terms are reported, not duplicated.

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior1/5

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

The description claims idempotent behavior ('re-posting the same terms reports them as already_tracked'), but the annotations set idempotentHint=false, which is a direct contradiction. Per guidelines, score 1 when description contradicts 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 three sentences, front-loaded with a behavioral marker ('WRITE tool'), and covers purpose, idempotency, return values, and requirements without waste. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Given the tool has 3 parameters, no output schema, and limited annotations, the description covers purpose, behavior, idempotency, return outcomes, and prerequisites. It is largely complete, though it could mention error handling or rate limits.

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 detailed descriptions for all three parameters. The description adds context about idempotency and outcome reporting but does not add new semantic meaning to the parameters beyond what the schema already 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 clearly states the tool starts daily rank tracking for keywords on an app in the caller's Sonar workspace, using specific verbs and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like sonar_track_app and sonar_untrack_keywords by focusing on keyword-level tracking initiation.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool (to start tracking keywords) and mentions requirements (Indie plan, write scope), but does not explicitly compare to alternatives or state when not to use it.

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