Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
aso-audit-mcp

aso-audit-mcp

by ataygamesmode-ops
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

Check a single metadata field

check_field

Check a metadata field's character count against the store's limit for iOS or Android app listings.

Instructions

Check one metadata field's character usage against its store limit. Built by asoagency.io.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "platform": "<platform>",
      "field": "<field>",
      "value": "<value>"
    },
    "name": "check_field"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
fieldYesWhich field to check.
valueYesThe field text to measure.
platformYesTarget store.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full burden. It does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, how character usage is determined (e.g., with/without spaces), or what the output looks like.

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?

Two sentences, minimal waste. However, the attribution 'Built by asoagency.io' is unnecessary for tool function and could be removed for greater conciseness.

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 and no description of the return value. It is unclear what the tool returns (e.g., usage count, boolean for exceed/not, etc.), leaving a significant gap for a tool that checks against a limit.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for all three parameters. The description adds no further meaning beyond the schema, which already defines 'field', 'value', and 'platform' clearly.

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 the action (check) and resource (one metadata field's character usage against store limit). It distinguishes from siblings: audit_metadata likely checks multiple fields, get_limits retrieves limits, keyword_field_check focuses on keywords.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings. Does not mention alternative tools or scenarios where this tool is preferable.

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