Skip to main content
Glama
applyra-io

@applyra/mcp-server

by applyra-io
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

List tracked keywords

list_keywords
Read-only

Retrieve tracked ASO keywords with rank, difficulty, and traffic scores plus top 5 competitor apps. Filter by app or favorites to analyze keyword performance.

Instructions

List tracked keywords with ASO metrics. Returns each keyword with: keyword text, store, country, lang, difficulty_score (0-100), traffic_score (0-100), current_rank, ahead/behind (the apps ranked immediately above and below yours), the top 5 apps ranking for this keyword (in ranking order, rank 1 to 5), is_favorite flag, and the tracking start date. current_rank comes from the latest daily ranking snapshot and is null when the app is not in the top 100 for that keyword, in which case ahead and behind are null too. A null rank always means "not ranked", never "unknown": the tool errors out rather than returning partial rank data. Paginated.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pageNoPage number (starts at 1)
app_idNoFilter keywords by application internal ID (numeric, e.g. "344")
per_pageNoResults per page (max 1000, default 200)
favoritesNoSet to "true" to return only keywords marked as favorite.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv1.6.1
    • removedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -false
  2. First observedv1.4.0

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description adds substantial behavioral context beyond them: null-rank semantics ('not ranked', never 'unknown'), the guarantee that the tool errors out rather than returning partial rank data, pagination, and the meaning of ahead/behind. This is exactly the extra context annotations cannot convey.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose then return shape, and the null-rank caveat is placed right after the field it qualifies. The long field enumeration is dense but each item is informative; only minor trimming is possible.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly carries the return-value burden and documents fields, null behavior, error behavior, and pagination. The remaining gap is usage routing against the many sibling list/rank tools, which is not addressed.

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 all four parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail (no mention of page/per_page defaults, app_id filtering, or the favorites flag), so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List tracked keywords with ASO metrics') and enumerates the exact fields returned. However, it never differentiates itself from close siblings such as inspect_keyword, list_keyword_inspections, or get_keyword_rank_history, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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?

Usage is only implied by the name and the paginated-list shape; there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative. The description does not mention the app_id/favorites filters as usage guidance, and no routing to inspect_keyword or track_keywords is given.

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