Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
App Store Review Intelligence MCP Server

App Store Review Intelligence MCP Server

by gunnargray-dev
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

Compare apps side by side

compare_apps
Read-onlyIdempotent

Compare 2–10 apps in one storefront to benchmark ratings, pricing, release data, and recent review sentiment, then identify leaders and top complaints for competitor analysis.

Instructions

Benchmark 2-10 apps in one storefront for competitor analysis: store rating, rating count, price, current version & release date (Google adds installs), plus recent-review metrics (sample average, % negative / positive, latest-version average, top 5 complaints) and per-metric leaders. Apple ids and Google Play package names can be mixed (e.g. iOS vs Android of the same app). Examples: "Notion vs Evernote", "which meditation app has the happiest users". One flat price per call. Get ids from search_apps first. For one app in depth (version deltas, more quotes) use review_insights instead.

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": {
      "app_ids": "<app_ids>"
    },
    "name": "compare_apps"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
langNoGoogle Play only: review/listing language, e.g. "en", "de", "pt-BR". Default "en". Ignored for Apple.en
pagesNoReview pages to fetch, ~50 newest reviews each (1-10). Default 2.
app_idsYes2-10 app ids, e.g. ["284882215","389801252"] or ["389801252","com.instagram.android"].
countryNo2-letter storefront country code, e.g. "us", "gb", "de". Default "us".us

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.1.0

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent, so the description adds cost ('one flat price per call'), cross-platform id mixing behavior, and platform-specific differences (Google adds installs). It stops short of describing response shape or pagination of the comparison itself, so it's strong but not exhaustive.

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-loads the core capability and metric list, then routing, then examples. Dense but each clause carries information; the parenthetical metric list is slightly packed but justified given no output schema.

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 enumerates return content (store rating, price, version, review sample metrics, top complaints, per-metric leaders) and discloses cost. An agent has everything needed to decide and call correctly.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: the 2-10 constraint, that all apps share one storefront, and that Apple ids and Google Play package names can be mixed in a single call. That clarification goes beyond the per-parameter schema text.

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 (benchmark/compare) and resource (2-10 apps in one storefront), and enumerates the exact metrics returned. It explicitly positions itself against siblings, noting review_insights is for single-app depth.

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?

Gives explicit prerequisites ('Get ids from search_apps first'), an explicit exclusion routing to review_insights for single-app deep dives, plus concrete example queries. Both when-to-use and when-not-to-use are covered.

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