Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
storelift-mcp

storelift-mcp

by vom-core
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussions(1)Admin
JavaScript
Remote

get_listing_timeline

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieves an app's listing change history and shows keyword rank movements—terms up, down, entered, or dropped—around each change, plus five key moves.

Instructions

Dated changes to one app's listing — new version, screenshots, in-app events, featuring from the store page, and keyword-field edits from App Store Connect — each with the keyword rank movement around it: terms that went up, down, entered or dropped between the last measurement before the change and the last one within window days after, plus the five biggest moves.

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": {
      "appId": "<appId>"
    },
    "name": "get_listing_timeline"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
appIdYesapp id from list_apps
windowNodays after each change to read ranks, up to 30 (default 7)
countryNocountry code, e.g. tr, us (defaults to the app's first country)
platformNodefaults to ios

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv1.5.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: it explains how rank movement is derived (last measurement before the change vs. the last one within `window` days after) and that five biggest moves are included. No rate limits or auth notes, but the derivation logic is unusually informative.

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 the core subject ('Dated changes to one app's listing') and largely earns each clause. It is a single long sentence dense with em-dashes, which packs value but is somewhat hard to parse; a mild structural improvement 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 carries the burden of explaining the return payload, and it does so well — listing change types and the rank-movement breakdown. For a read-only, 4-param tool this is nearly complete; only cross-tool usage guidance is missing.

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 appId, window, country, and platform. The description reinforces window ('within `window` days after') and the country/platform defaults add no new info. Baseline 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?

Names a specific verb+resource ('Dated changes to one app's listing') and then enumerates the change categories (version, screenshots, in-app events, featuring, keyword-field edits) plus the rank-movement payload. This is highly concrete and would let an agent distinguish it from generic history tools. It does not, however, explicitly differentiate itself from closely related siblings like get_history or get_change_impact.

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 explicit statement of when to use this tool, when not to, or which sibling to prefer (e.g., get_history, get_change_impact). Usage is only inferable from the content description, and with several overlapping-sounding siblings the omission is a real routing gap.

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