app_ratingsRetrieve an app's total ratings count and 1–5 star histogram using its numeric iTunes track ID, with an optional country code to target a specific App Store.
Get the total ratings count and 1–5 star histogram for an app.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Numeric iTunes trackId of the app, e.g. 553834731 (Candy Crush Saga). | |
| country | No | Two-letter country code of the store (default: us). Also affects result language. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety and external-source behavior are covered. The description adds useful context by naming the returned content (total count plus 1–5 star histogram), which matters because no output schema exists, but it leaves open whether the histogram values are counts or percentages and whether results are scoped by country.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the key output content appears immediately. Nothing in it is redundant with the title or schema in a wasteful way.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a two-parameter, read-only lookup with no output schema, stating the returned values is the main thing an agent needs, and the description does that. The only real gap is unit/format ambiguity in the histogram and the absence of a pointer to the sibling review tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, and the schema itself explains the iTunes trackId format and the two-letter country code with its default and language effect. The description adds nothing on top of that, so the baseline of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description names a specific verb and resource ('Get the total ratings count and 1–5 star histogram for an app'), which is far more precise than a generic 'get app data'. It implicitly separates itself from app_reviews (textual reviews) by focusing on aggregate counts and the star histogram, though it never names that sibling or states the distinction explicitly.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the tool for aggregate rating stats rather than reviews or details, but the description gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. There is no mention of the closest alternative (app_reviews) or of choosing between ratings-only and full app metadata.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.