Sensor Tower MCP Server Pro

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v1.4.2
Disambiguation2/5
Several tools have overlapping purposes, such as version_history and app_update_timeline both covering app update history, and compact_sales_report_estimates duplicating download/revenue estimates. While descriptions hint at differences, the boundaries are unclear, making misselection likely.
Naming Consistency2/5
Naming is inconsistent: many tools use get_ prefix (get_app_metadata, get_download_estimates), but others are noun phrases without verbs (version_history, category_ranking_summary, downloads_by_sources, top_in_app_purchases). No uniform verb_noun or noun_verb pattern emerges.
Tool Count3/5
At 23 tools, the set is on the heavy side but appropriate for a broad analytics platform covering many data types. Not excessive enough to warrant a 2, but above the ideal 3-15 range.
Completeness4/5
The tool set covers major Sensor Tower capabilities: metadata, estimates, usage, rankings, retention, demographics, publisher info, and reference data. Missing review-level data or advanced ad intelligence, but core workflows are represented. Slight gaps around update/delete operations are irrelevant for a read-only analytics API.
Average 3.2/5 across 23 of 23 tools scored. Lowest: 2.3/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only repeats the tool's name without revealing any behavioral traits such as data aggregation, authorization requirements, rate limits, or response format.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence and is concise, but it lacks structure and is under-specified for a tool with 7 parameters. It states the purpose but does not provide any additional context or organization.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (7 parameters) and the absence of annotations and output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain return values, required inputs, or any contextual information needed to invoke the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds no information about parameters beyond what the schema already provides. With 71% schema description coverage, most parameters are documented in the schema, but the description itself contributes nothing to parameter understanding.
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?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'usage intelligence active users data', making the basic purpose understandable. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling analytics tools, relying on the name for differentiation.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description gives no context about typical use cases, prerequisites, or scenarios where this tool is preferred over sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, leaving the description to carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only states a 'Get' action, implying a read operation, but does not disclose whether it is safe, what data is returned, any rate limits, or whether it requires specific permissions. This is a significant gap for a data-retrieval tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise, but it is under-specified to the point of being a fragment. It saves space but fails to earn its place by not providing enough information to be useful. It is neither well-structured nor adequately informative.
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?
The tool has 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description is minimal—just a vague one-liner. It does not explain what demographic dimensions are reported, how the parameters interact, or what the response might look like. For a tool of this complexity, the description is clearly incomplete.
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%, with each parameter having a basic description (e.g., 'Operating system', 'Comma-separated app IDs'). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, but the schema itself is adequate. The baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema handles the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get demographic analysis data for apps' uses a clear verb and identifies the resource, but is vague about what 'demographic analysis' entails (e.g., age, gender, location) and does not distinguish it from sibling tools like app_analysis_retention or downloads_by_sources. It communicates the basic purpose but lacks specificity.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling list includes several analysis-focused tools, but the description offers no context, prerequisites, or exclusions. An agent cannot determine when this tool is the right choice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It merely restates the function without mentioning output format, ordering, pagination, limits, or dependencies. The schema already provides some parameter details, but the description adds no behavioral context.
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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It is concise and clear, though it could benefit from a bit more contextual detail without becoming bloated.
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?
For a tool with four parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is incomplete. It does not explain what the update history timeline contains, how date_limit influences results, or what the response format is, leaving significant gaps for an agent.
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 the schema already documents all four parameters. The description adds no extra semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides, which meets the baseline for this dimension.
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?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('app update history timeline'). However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'version_history', which appears closely related.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. It only says what it does, not when it should be chosen.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool returns 'download and revenue estimates,' but fails to explain what 'compact format' means, how filters behave, what defaults apply, or any output structure. This is a significant gap for a tool with 11 parameters and no output schema.
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?
The description is a single sentence with no redundant words, making it very concise and easy to scan. It loses a point because the qualifier 'compact format' is ambiguous and could have been replaced with more precise language without adding length.
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?
For a complex tool with 11 parameters, 3 required fields, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is far too thin. It does not explain filtering scope, defaults (like countries=US or date_granularity=daily), or what the compact output contains, leaving the agent to guess.
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 high (82%), so the schema already explains most parameters. The description adds no additional meaning about parameter relationships, defaults, or valid values beyond what is in the schema. It earns the baseline score but does not go further.
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?
The description clearly states the tool's function: retrieving download and revenue estimates in a compact format. It is specific with a verb ('Get') and resource ('download and revenue estimates'), but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like get_download_estimates or get_revenue_estimates beyond the vague 'compact format' qualifier.
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 is provided about when to use this tool versus the separate download/revenue estimate tools, nor are any exclusions or prerequisites mentioned. The description gives no contextual usage hints beyond the implied purpose from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It implies a read operation via 'Get' but does not explain output format, potential pagination, rate limits, or required permissions. Minimal transparency.
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?
Single sentence, efficient and front-loaded. However, it is overly concise and sacrifices useful detail for brevity.
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 exists, so the description should explain return values. It only provides a partial list of metadata fields. Given the tool has four parameters and no annotations, the description is insufficient for an agent to fully anticipate behavior or results.
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?
The schema fully describes all four parameters (100% coverage), so description adds little. It hints at the return content ('descriptions, ratings') but does not deepen understanding of parameters like include_sdk_data or country.
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?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves app metadata with specific examples (descriptions, ratings). It is distinct from sibling tools like get_download_estimates, but the phrase 'and more' is vague and doesn't fully scope the resource.
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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of appropriate contexts, exclusions, or how it differs from sibling metadata tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get category ranking history' with no additional context about return format, date range constraints, or any potential limitations. This is insufficient for a no-annotation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without filler. It is front-loaded and every word earns its place, exemplifying high 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?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (7 parameters) and lack of output schema or annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not explain expected use cases, result structure, or important caveats, leaving significant gaps for the agent.
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?
The input schema covers all 7 parameters with individual descriptions, giving 100% schema coverage. Since the schema already documents each parameter, the description adds no extra parameter semantics, which aligns with the baseline of 3.
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?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves category ranking history for apps, using a specific verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like category_ranking_summary, so it lacks sibling differentiation.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of preferred contexts, exclusions, or fallback options, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic retrieval action and omits pagination behavior, default limits, response format, or any side effects. This is insufficient for a tool with these parameters.
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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It conveys the core action efficiently, though it lacks the richness that would make it more helpful. It is concise without being tautological.
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?
The tool has 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, yet the description only offers the bare minimum. It does not explain return structure, pagination specifics, or the relationship to similar tools, leaving the agent under-informed for correct invocation.
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?
All five parameters have descriptions in the schema (100% coverage), so the tool-level description adds no additional semantic value. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema handles parameter meaning.
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?
The description clearly states the verb 'Retrieve' and the resource 'apps for the specified publisher', which establishes the scope. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like get_unified_publisher_apps, so it stops short of the top score.
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 is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives, and no exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned. The implied use case (having a publisher ID) is not explicitly stated, leaving the agent without clear selection criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states the operation. It does not mention return format, pagination, error behavior, or safety characteristics, beyond a neutral 'retrieve' implying read-only.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the function without wasting words. It could be more informative, but it is appropriately concise for a simple tool.
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?
Given the tool's potential overlap with 'get_publisher_apps', the description lacks essential context about what 'unified' means, what data is returned, and when this tool should be chosen over siblings. The absence of an output schema and annotations makes this brevity a significant gap.
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?
The input schema provides 100% description coverage for the single parameter 'unified_id' ('Unified publisher identifier'), so the description does not need to add parameter meaning. The tool description itself adds no additional semantics, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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?
The description clearly provides a specific verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('unified publisher details and associated apps'), making the basic purpose unambiguous. However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling tool 'get_publisher_apps', leaving the exact meaning of 'unified' unclear.
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 is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_publisher_apps or get_app_metadata. There are no mentions of prerequisites, use cases, or exclusions, leaving the agent without decision-making context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states it is 'lightweight' and a 'status endpoint,' but doesn't disclose what it returns, whether it requires authentication, or any side effects. This is minimal behavioral information.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence with no filler. It front-loads the key information about being a lightweight status endpoint, making it easy to scan.
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?
Given the tool is simple (no params, no schema), the description is still incomplete because it omits any information about the response format or expected behavior. The absence of an output schema makes it more critical to describe what the endpoint returns, but the description does not.
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?
The tool has zero parameters, so the schema already covers everything. The description doesn't need to explain parameters, and the baseline for zero parameters is 4. The description adds no param semantics, but none are needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description identifies the tool as a 'status endpoint for monitoring and orchestration,' which clearly distinguishes it from the data-oriented sibling tools. However, it doesn't specify what status information is returned or what actions it performs, making the purpose somewhat vague.
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?
The description hints at usage for 'monitoring and orchestration' but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives, nor any exclusions. Sibling tool names suggest a broad API, but no comparison is made.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only says 'Fetch' without mentioning read-only nature, output format, pagination, rate limits, or any constraints. This is a minimal disclosure that fails to inform the agent about important call-time behaviors.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, making it highly concise and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is severely incomplete. It does not explain return structure, data granularity options, or how to specify multiple apps/countries. The presence of many sibling tools further demands more context to avoid mis-selection.
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?
The schema provides descriptions for most parameters (71% coverage), so the description does not need to compensate heavily. However, the description adds little value beyond the schema, merely echoing 'country and date' without elaborating on parameters like data_model or date_granularity. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema coverage.
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 tool fetches download estimates, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_revenue_estimates or get_usage_active_users. It also specifies the scope (apps, country, date), making the purpose specific and unambiguous.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool over its siblings (e.g., when download estimates are needed vs. revenue or usage). It also lacks any exclusions or alternative tool references, leaving usage context entirely implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool returns download data, but does not describe pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements, data granularity, or any side effects. The mention of 'sources' is more about output dimensions than behavioral traits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single 9-word sentence that is front-loaded and information-dense. It wastes no words and is easy to parse quickly.
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?
Given the tool has 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too minimal. It does not explain what the returned data looks like, how sources relate to the input parameters, or any usage context. A richer description with examples or caveats would be needed for complete guidance.
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?
The schema already covers 83% of parameters with descriptions and enums, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the concept of source breakdown (organic, paid, browser), which is not present in the schema, but it does not clarify the semantics of the existing parameters beyond what the schema provides.
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 tool gets app downloads grouped by source (organic, paid, browser), which is a specific verb+resource+scope. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_download_estimates by explicitly naming the source dimension.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or selection criteria relative to sibling tools, leaving the agent to guess based on the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb 'Retrieve' suggests a read-only operation, but the description does not disclose pagination behavior (offset/limit), default limits, result format, or any side effects. Since there is no output schema, this is a significant omission.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence of nine words, front-loading the core purpose without any filler. Every word earns its place, and it is appropriately concise for a tool with a clear primary function.
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?
The tool has 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description only states the core purpose and mentions category and date filters, but fails to explain pagination (offset/limit), the distinction between start_date and updated_date, or the expected return shape beyond 'app IDs.' This is incomplete for an agent to use with confidence, especially given the large number of sibling tools.
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?
The input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond restating the category and date filter concepts already present in the schema. It does not clarify the meaning of start_date vs updated_date beyond what the schema already provides.
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 uses the specific verb 'Retrieve' and identifies the resource 'app IDs' along with key filtering dimensions 'by category and release/update date filters.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_app_metadata (which retrieves metadata) and get_category_ids (which gets category IDs).
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?
The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_publisher_apps or get_unified_publisher_apps. The intended use case is implied by the name and description, but there is no 'when to use' or 'when not to use' context, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternative tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Retrieve featured apps' and does not mention pagination, date-range behavior, authentication requirements, or the structure of the response. This is minimal transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler words. It efficiently states the verb and resource, making it concise and well-structured.
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?
With no annotations and no output schema, the description must compensate. It fails to mention what fields are returned, whether dates are required for historical data, or how 'featured apps' are determined. This is insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior.
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 the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema; it does not explain how the category, country, or date parameters affect the results. The description contributes little beyond what the parameter descriptions already provide.
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 'Retrieve' and the specific resource 'featured apps on the App Store Apps & Games pages.' It is distinct from sibling tools such as get_app_metadata and get_featured_today_stories, making it unambiguous.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or specific scenarios. It lacks context about when to use it alongside other discovery tools or how to choose between category, country, or date parameters.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It implies a read operation via 'Fetch' but does not disclose any other behavior such as the approximate nature of estimates, data model sensitivity, pagination, or authentication requirements. This is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence of eight words, making it extremely concise. It efficiently conveys the core purpose without any extraneous information.
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?
Given the tool's complexity (7 parameters, 3 enums, no annotations, no output schema), this brief description is inadequate. It does not mention the return value format, how data_model affects results, or any limitations, making it insufficient for an agent to invoke the tool with confidence.
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?
The tool description adds the context that revenue estimates are fetched 'by country and date', which highlights the role of the countries, start_date, and end_date parameters. However, it does not explain os, app_ids, data_model, or date_granularity. With schema coverage at 71%, the description provides marginal additional meaning but leaves the less-covered parameters unexplained.
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 uses the specific verb 'Fetch' and clearly identifies the resource as 'revenue estimates', scoped by 'apps by country and date'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_download_estimates and get_usage_active_users.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives. There are no mentions of exclusions, prerequisites, or comparison to sibling tools like get_download_estimates or compact_sales_report_estimates.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions 'today's', implying a time constraint, but does not explain return structure, potential limitations, or data freshness expectations. This leaves the agent with significant uncertainty about behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the core purpose without any extraneous words. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple with three well-described parameters, but there is no output schema and no annotations. The description does not explain what the 'summary' contains or what the tool returns, leaving a notable gap in context. However, the core purpose and parameters are clear, making it minimally adequate.
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 each parameter described (os, app_id, country). The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 ('Get'), the resource ('category ranking summary'), and the scope ('today's', 'for a particular app'). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_category_history, which likely provides historical data, and get_app_ids_by_category, which lists apps.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_category_history. It only states what it does, without any context about suitable scenarios or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description carries full responsibility. It states only the action 'retrieve' without disclosing behavior such as return format, pagination, ordering, or the significance of date parameters. No side effects or data scope are explained.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single clear sentence, front-loaded with the action and object. No filler or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is sufficient for a basic retrieval tool with fully described schema parameters. However, it lacks context about what 'Today stories' are, how date range affects results, or what the response includes, making it somewhat incomplete given the sibling tool diversity.
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?
Input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions (country, start_date, end_date). The description adds no additional parameter context, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 uses a specific verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('featured Today stories') with source ('App Store'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like get_featured_apps, which focus on apps rather than editorial stories.
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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_featured_apps. The description lacks context about appropriate use cases or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Retrieve', which implies a read operation, but gives no detail on sorting, limits, default behavior, or response characteristics. This is a significant lack of context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence that wastes no words. It is properly front-loaded with the action and object.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is minimal but adequate for a simple retrieval tool with fully documented parameters. However, the meaning of 'top' is unspecified, and without an output schema, some additional behavioral context (e.g., ordering, pagination) would improve completeness.
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 the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, fitting the baseline score of 3.
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?
The description uses a specific verb and resource ('Retrieve top in-app purchases') and clearly states the input scope ('requested app IDs'). While it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools, the function is distinct and unambiguous.
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?
The description implies a read-only retrieval use case but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_revenue_estimates or get_download_estimates. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states 'Get list of category IDs' without describing return format (e.g., data type, ordering), error conditions, or whether the operation is read-only. The simple wording implies a read operation but adds no behavioral context beyond that.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, front-loaded with the action, zero redundant words. Perfectly concise.
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?
Given the extreme simplicity of the tool (one parameter, no output schema), the description is mostly complete. It states the purpose and platform scope, but could mention whether the list is sorted or includes all categories; however, this is not critical for a basic lookup tool.
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 a clear enum description for 'os' (ios/android). The description restates the platform choice but adds no additional meaning about parameter formatting, defaults, or constraints beyond the schema.
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?
Description clearly states the verb 'Get', resource 'list of category IDs', and platform scope 'iOS or Android'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_app_ids_by_category (which returns app IDs) and get_category_history (which returns history).
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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or any context for selecting it over sibling tools like get_category_history.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It adds a critical constraint (quarterly requires end_date) beyond what the schema implies, but it does not describe return format, read-only nature, or any other behaviors. The warning is useful but limited.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact: two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, followed by a critical caveat. Every word earns its place, and the warning uses clear formatting with an emoji to draw attention.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simple parameter set and rich schema, the description is adequate but lacks any mention of response structure or output semantics. The critical quarterly/end_date constraint is covered, but the tool's overall behavior is not fully described. No output schema exists, so this gap is noticeable.
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%, so parameters are already well-documented. The description adds a helpful emphasis on the date_granularity and end_date relationship, but it largely repeats the schema's existing descriptions. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves retention analysis data for apps, using a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('retention analysis data'). It is distinct from sibling tools like get_usage_active_users or app_analysis_demographics, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate itself.
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?
The description provides important usage guidance about the date_granularity parameter and the requirement for end_date when using quarterly, which helps correct invocation. However, it does not explain when to prefer this tool over alternatives or provide exclusion criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. While 'get' implies a read-only operation, the description does not explicitly state it, nor does it mention response format, error handling, or any side effects. This is a minimal disclosure, leaving the agent to infer the tool's safety and behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource. Every word contributes to meaning, and there is no fluff or repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (zero parameters, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. However, it does not specify what exactly is returned (e.g., ISO codes, country names) or how the list might be used. The phrase 'for Sensor Tower API' provides some context, but the description could be more complete for an agent expected to consume the result.
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?
The tool has zero parameters, so the input schema carries no burden. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description is sufficient since there are no parameter semantics to clarify.
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 tool's function: 'Get list of available country codes for Sensor Tower API.' The verb 'get' and the specific resource 'country codes' make the purpose unambiguous, and it is distinct from the sibling analytics tools, which perform data retrieval rather than utility lookups.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool, nor does it mention alternatives or exclusions. For a utility like this, it would be helpful to note that it's useful for validating country codes in other API calls, but no such context is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It clearly indicates a read operation ('Get'), but adds no other behavioral details such as response format, pagination, or whether it returns all historical versions or a limited set. This is adequate but minimal.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with zero wasted words. It states the action and target clearly.
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?
Given the tool's low complexity (3 parameters, no nested objects, no output schema), the description is sufficient for a straightforward read operation. It doesn't need to explain return values, but could have noted any limitations or specific behavior. Overall, it is complete for its simplicity.
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?
The input schema has 100% coverage, with all three parameters described. The description adds no additional meaning beyond 'particular app', which aligns with the app_id parameter. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 'Get version history for a particular app' uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('version history') with a clear scope ('particular app'), effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'app_update_timeline'.
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 is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or comparison with sibling tools such as 'app_update_timeline' or 'get_app_metadata'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action (list) and the resource (ranking chart identifiers), implying a read-only operation. However, it does not mention any additional behavioral traits such as response format, potential empty results, or API key requirements. For a simple zero-parameter list, this is minimally adequate but lacks depth.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no extraneous words. It is front-loaded with the verb 'List' and immediately specifies the resource. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.
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?
Given that this is a simple no-parameter list tool, the description provides sufficient context for an agent to understand its purpose and output. However, it does not specify the exact structure of the returned identifiers or any related details, such as whether they are strings or objects. Since there is no output schema, a bit more detail would have been helpful, but the current description is largely complete.
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?
The tool has zero parameters, so the schema provides no property information. The description adds context by specifying that the output consists of 'ranking chart identifiers,' which helps the agent understand what the tool returns. Per the rubric, 0 params warrants a baseline of 4, and this description meets that baseline.
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 tool's function: listing available ranking chart identifiers. This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_category_ids or get_country_codes, which focus on different data types.
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 usage guidance is provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives, any prerequisites, or when a different tool might be more appropriate. There is no mention of scenarios where this tool should be avoided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description clearly discloses that the endpoint is returning a 500 Internal Server Error, which is a critical behavioral trait beyond the schema. It also explicitly identifies it as a server-side issue, setting proper expectations for the agent.
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?
The description is short and front-loaded with the purpose. The disabled warning is a bit repetitive (mentions trying again later twice) and uses heavy formatting, but it's still concise and readable.
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?
For the tool's current disabled state, the description is complete: it tells the agent not to use it and why. Once enabled, it lacks details on what statistics are returned, but the disabled notice is the most urgent contextual information.
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 67%, and the description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. Since the schema defines parameters like os, categories, and date ranges, the description doesn't compensate for missing parameter details.
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?
The description opens with 'Get app store summary statistics,' which clearly states the tool's function. However, it doesn't specify what kind of summary statistics or how they differ from sibling tools like get_download_estimates or category_ranking_summary.
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?
The description explicitly warns that the tool is temporarily disabled and advises contacting support or retrying later, which is important context. However, it offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, and the disabled notice is a when-not rather than a when-to.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![SensorTower_mcp_npm MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/toller892/SensorTower_mcp_npm/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/toller892/SensorTower_mcp_npm)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![SensorTower_mcp_npm MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/toller892/SensorTower_mcp_npm/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/toller892/SensorTower_mcp_npm)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/toller892/SensorTower_mcp_npm'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server