Skip to main content
Glama

sonar

by app.trysonar

Untrack Keywords

sonar_untrack_keywords
DestructiveIdempotent

WRITE tool — bulk-untrack keywords for an app in the caller's Sonar workspace. Pass all: true to remove every tracked keyword, OR ids: [...] to remove specific ones (exactly one of the two). Requires an Indie plan (trial counts) and an API key with the write scope.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
allNoSet true to untrack ALL keywords for the app. Mutually exclusive with `ids` — pass exactly one of `all` or `ids`.
idsNoTracked-keyword ids to untrack (from sonar_app_keywords). Mutually exclusive with `all` — pass exactly one of `all` or `ids`.
app_idYesSonar app UUID — the `id` returned by sonar_list_apps or sonar_create_product. NOT a store id.

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already convey destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds plan requirements and the 'WRITE' label, which is consistent. No contradiction, but it does not add significant behavioral context beyond what annotations provide.

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?

Two sentences, no wasted words. The key usage modes and constraints are front-loaded. Every sentence adds value.

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?

The description covers the operation, modes, and requirements. It does not mention the return value or confirmation, but given the lack of output schema, this is a minor gap. Still fairly complete for a simple bulk action.

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 all parameters described. The description repeats the mutual exclusivity rule already in the schema. It adds plan/scope information but not new parameter-level semantics beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states it is a WRITE tool for bulk-untracking keywords for an app, specifying the two modes (all or ids). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'sonar_delete_tracked_keyword' which handles single keyword removal, but the 'bulk' aspect is implied.

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 usage constraints: requires an Indie plan, write-scope API key, and exactly one of 'all' or 'ids'. It does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like sonar_delete_tracked_keyword, but the context is sufficient for typical use cases.

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