sonar_untrack_appWRITE tool — untrack an app and its associated tracking data in the caller's Sonar workspace. Requires an Indie plan (trial counts) and an API key with the write scope.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| app_id | Yes | Sonar app UUID — the `id` returned by sonar_list_apps or sonar_create_product. NOT a store id. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description explicitly labels itself as a 'WRITE tool', which aligns with the annotations (readOnlyHint: false, destructiveHint: true). It states it will untrack an app and its associated tracking data, making the destructive nature clear. The idempotentHint: true annotation is consistent with the implied behavior (untracking is likely idempotent). No contradictions.
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-loading the purpose and adding prerequisites in the second. Every sentence adds value. No wasted words.
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?
The tool has one simple parameter, no output schema, and the description plus annotations fully cover its behavior. The only missing element is clarifying what 'associated tracking data' means (e.g., keywords, alerts?). However, given the low complexity, this is a minor gap.
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?
There is only one parameter, app_id, and the schema already provides 100% coverage with a detailed description (Sonar app UUID, not a store id, referencing sonar_list_apps or sonar_create_product). The tool description adds no new meaning about the parameter beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 the tool untracks an app and its associated tracking data in the caller's Sonar workspace. It uses a specific verb (untrack) and specifies the resource (app and associated tracking data). It distinguishes from sibling tools like sonar_track_app (opposite) and sonar_delete_product (different domain).
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 is explicit about prerequisites: it requires an Indie plan (trial counts) and an API key with the write scope. This helps the agent know when the tool can be used. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or suggest alternative tools (e.g., if the user wants to just stop tracking but not delete data).
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.