Skip to main content
Glama

ShipASO

by io.github.airowe

audit_play_app_owner

Read-only

Read-only audit of YOUR OWN Google Play app via the official Play Developer API — full fidelity including the short description (which the public page can't show), with NO capability locks. Requires a configured Play service account (GOOGLE_PLAY_SERVICE_ACCOUNT). Reads only — it opens and DISCARDS a Play 'edit' and NEVER commits, so it can't publish. Owner-only; for a competitor use audit_play_app.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
brandNoApp brand name, so short-description brand-burn is flagged
targetsNoTarget search terms to measure long-description coverage for
languageNoBCP-47 listing language, e.g. en-US
packageNameYesYour app's Play package id, e.g. com.foo.bar

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, and the description meaningfully adds to them: it opens and discards a Play edit, never commits, and therefore cannot publish. This goes beyond the annotations by explaining the mechanism and safety guarantee in concrete terms.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is dense and front-loaded with the most important facts: read-only, own app, official API, and the competitor alternative. There is some redundancy between 'Read-only' and 'Reads only' and the never-commits clause, but each sentence still contributes safety or usage context.

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 key contextual needs: prerequisites, side-effect safety, scope, and sibling routing. Since there is no output schema, describing the return shape would be helpful, but for an audit tool the output is reasonably inferable and the invocation decision is fully supported.

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 every parameter is already explained in the input schema. The description does not repeat parameter details, which is fine, but it also does not add additional semantic value beyond the schema. A 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 states a specific verb and resource: a read-only audit of YOUR OWN Google Play app via the official Play Developer API. It also explicitly differentiates itself from the sibling audit_play_app by marking this as owner-only and that as competitor-oriented, so an agent can distinguish them without opening schemas.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description gives clear usage boundaries: owner-only use, and 'for a competitor use audit_play_app' as the explicit alternative. It also states the prerequisite of a configured Play service account, which helps the agent know when it can or cannot be invoked.

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

All ShipASO 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

A4/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Tools are largely distinct by store, ownership, and analysis focus, with clear separation between App Store audits, Play audits, competitor diffs, keyword gaps, localization, rank checks, screenshots, and proof. A minor overlap exists between audit_app and preview_app, both of which read App Store listing data, though their outputs differ enough to avoid serious confusion.

Naming Consistency3/5

All names use snake_case and are readable, but the grammatical pattern is mixed: some are verb_noun (audit_app, propose_copy), some are noun phrases (keyword_gaps, localization_gaps, war_room), and a few are bare nouns (proof). There is no consistent verb-first or noun-first convention across the set.

Tool Count5/5

Twelve tools is well-scoped for an ASO intelligence server. Each tool addresses a meaningful part of the domain—auditing, competitor tracking, keyword/localization opportunities, rank checking, screenshot scoring, and proof—without feeling bloated or redundant.

Completeness5/5

The surface covers the core read-only ASO workflow: listing audits for both stores, owner-only Play audit, competitor monitoring, keyword and localization gaps, rank checks, screenshot coverage, draft copy proposals, and aggregate proof. The deliberate absence of write/publish tools is consistent with the server's stated human-approved loop, so no critical lifecycle gaps remain.

Resources