Skip to main content
Glama

sonar

by app.trysonar

Update Screenshot

sonar_update_screenshot
Idempotent

Replace one screen's layout in a screenshot set. Whole-document replace — fetch the current layout, modify it, send it back. The change shows up immediately in the Screenshot Studio for human review. Requires a write-scope API key.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
layoutYesThe FULL replacement layout — this replaces the whole document, it does not merge. Never send a layout containing '[inline image omitted…]' placeholders; refetch with include_image_data first.
screenshot_idYesScreen id (from the set's screens array).

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by stating 'requires a write-scope API key' (auth requirement) and 'change shows up immediately in the Screenshot Studio' (real-time effect). 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?

Four short sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: purpose, operation pattern, immediate effect, auth requirement. No wasted words; the key information is front-loaded. The structure is clean and efficient.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

No output schema exists, so the description should cover return value, but it doesn't. It omits what the agent can expect after the request (e.g., updated layout object, success message). Also lacks error conditions or prerequisites beyond auth key. This gap reduces completeness for a write operation.

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%, setting a baseline of 3. The description for the 'layout' parameter adds significant meaning: 'FULL replacement — it replaces the whole document, it does not merge' and a warning about placeholders. This goes beyond schema properties and aids correct invocation.

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 it replaces one screen's layout in a screenshot set, using specific verbs and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like sonar_add_screenshot (adds a new screen) and sonar_delete_screenshot (removes a screen) by focusing on modification of existing content.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies usage context (replace vs. add) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings. It mentions the whole-document replace pattern and warns against placeholder images, but lacks direct 'when-not' guidance or alternative tool names.

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