Skip to main content
Glama
applyra-io

@applyra/mcp-server

by applyra-io
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Check listing metadata

check_metadata
Read-only

Validate draft app store listings against Google Play and App Store rules, returning per-field length limits, remaining characters, and warnings before you publish.

Instructions

Check draft listing text against the stores' own rules, before spending a run measuring it. Per field: the length as the STORE counts it (UTF-16 code units, which is not what a character count gives you in most languages), the limit, what is left, and warnings[]. warnings[].level is "error" (the store would refuse this as it stands), "warning" (it costs you something, or a reviewer may object) or "info" (worth knowing, often counter-intuitive: emoji are allowed in a Google Play description but banned in the app name). warnings[].rule names the policy when one fired: "price", "ranking", "play-program", "call-to-action", "kids", "rival-platform", or null for a limit or formatting warning. THE TWO STORES ARE NOT SYMMETRICAL, and this is the most actionable thing the tool tells you: Google NAMES forbidden words and rejects, so the same term is an error there; Apple publishes no list and a reviewer decides, so it is a warning. A draft can be perfectly valid on one store and refused on the other. valid is false only when at least one field carries an ERROR: a draft can be valid and still carry warnings worth acting on, so read them. notes[] carries anything wrong with the request itself, such as sending a keywords field to Google Play, which has none. On the iOS keywords field it also returns keywords{terms, duplicates, too_short, phrases, wasted_on_spaces, wasted_on_duplicates}: phrases are multi-word entries, which Apple splits apart and recombines itself, so they gain nothing over their words. It is pure arithmetic over the text you pass, with no store lookup, so it answers instantly: run it on every draft you write, in a loop if that helps, and call simulate_metadata only once it comes back valid.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
storeYesApp store: GPLAY (Google Play) or ITUNES (App Store)
titleNoApp name
kw_fieldNoiOS keywords field, comma separated. Google Play has no such field.
subtitleNoThe subtitle on iOS, the short description on Google Play
descriptionNoThe full/long description

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv1.6.1
    • removedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -false
  2. Addedv1.5.0

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint/openWorldHint/destructiveHint, but the description goes far beyond: it discloses the non-obvious store asymmetry (Google names forbidden words and rejects; Apple leaves it to a reviewer), that `valid` is false only on an ERROR, that a valid draft can still carry warnings, what `notes[]` carries, and that it is pure arithmetic with no store lookup so it answers instantly. This is exactly the added behavioral context the bar asks for.

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?

Purpose and the store-asymmetry insight are front-loaded, and most sentences carry genuine information. It is on the long side with some digressive asides (the emoji example, the phrases explanation), but little is pure filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description fully carries the return contract: per-field length as the store counts it (UTF-16 code units), the limit, remaining, warnings[] with levels and rule names, valid, notes[], and the iOS keywords object. Nothing an agent needs to interpret results is missing.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: kw_field is iOS-only and Google Play has no such field (surfaced via notes[]), subtitle means subtitle on iOS vs short description on GPlay, and it explains the iOS keywords return shape (phrases, duplicates, wasted_on_spaces). It stops short of documenting length limits per field, which it only references generically.

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 ('Check draft listing text against the stores' own rules') and immediately positions it relative to the sibling simulate_metadata. An agent can distinguish it from simulate_metadata without opening either schema.

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?

Explicit sequencing: run this 'before spending a run measuring it', 'on every draft you write, in a loop if that helps, and call simulate_metadata only once it comes back valid.' Names the alternative and the condition that selects it.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools