AppTail – ASO & Keyword Research

Add Competitors

add_competitors

Track one or more rival apps against one of YOUR apps. Each competitor can be given as an Apptail app_id, an App Store URL, or just a name — names and URLs are resolved and imported the way search_apps does, so you do NOT need to look up an app_id first. Returns one outcome per item: what was added, what was already tracked, and what a plan limit refused.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`app_id`	Yes	Apptail app id for one of YOUR apps — from get_account. The rivals are tracked FOR this app: competitor sets belong to an app, not to the account, so removing one later affects only this app.
`country`	No	Storefront to resolve names in, ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 (e.g. US, DE). Omit and it is guessed from the script the name is written in. Ignored for items given as an app_id.
`dry_run`	No	Resolve every item and report what would happen, without tracking anything. Use it when the user named apps ambiguously and you want to confirm you found the right ones before changing their account.
`competitors`	Yes	The rivals, up to 20. Each item is an Apptail app_id, a full App Store URL, or an app name in any language. Send all of them in one call — the plan limit is checked per item, so a batch that runs out of room still adds what fits and says which items did not.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`app_id`	Yes	The app these rivals are tracked against.
`dry_run`	Yes	True when nothing was written. Every outcome then reads `would_add`.
`outcomes`	Yes	One row per item, in the order they were sent. Read `status` per row: a batch is rarely all one thing, and reporting it as "done" when two of five were refused is the failure this shape exists to prevent.
`remaining`	No	Competitor slots left for this app on this plan after the call. Null when the plan is unlimited. Zero means the next add will be refused — say so rather than letting the user find out.
`added_count`	Yes	How many are now tracked that were not before.
`requested_count`	Yes	How many items were sent.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 2, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations cover safety (readOnly=false, destructive=false, openWorld=true), and the description adds meaningful behavior beyond them: per-item outcome reporting, plan-limit refusal semantics, and that a batch still adds what fits. Good added context on partial success and limit handling.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then resolution behavior, then return semantics. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

An output schema exists so return values needn't be spelled out, yet the description still summarizes the per-item outcome structure. Combined with the workflow guidance on avoiding a prior app_id lookup, an agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents app_id, country, dry_run, and competitors. The description mostly reinforces that resolution accepts app_id/URL/name, which the schema already states; 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('track rival apps against one of YOUR apps') and distinguishes itself from get_competitors/remove_competitors by being the add side of competitor tracking. It also clarifies the relationship to search_apps for name/URL resolution.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent it does NOT need to look up an app_id first because names/URLs resolve like search_apps, which is the key workflow decision. It does not name explicit when-not conditions versus siblings, but the context is clear.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All AppTail – ASO & Keyword Research tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?