Skip to main content
Glama

ShipASO

by io.github.airowe

competitor_watch

Read-only

Read-only competitor diff: resolves the named competitors and reports their current listings, what changed vs. the last seen state, and a digest line. Read-only metadata comparison; no ranking-algorithm data is invented.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
queryNoApp name, App Store URL, numeric id, or bundle id
countryNoISO country storefront, e.g. US
bundleIdNoExact bundle id (skips resolution)
competitorsYesCompetitor app names or bundle ids to compare against

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces this with 'Read-only' and 'Read-only metadata comparison.' It adds valuable behavioral context by stating no ranking data is invented and that it compares against the last seen state, which implies stateful persistence without explicitly detailing it.

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?

Two focused sentences with no wasted words. The core purpose is front-loaded as 'Read-only competitor diff,' and the clarifying sentence adds meaningful constraints without redundancy.

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 supplies the essential return shape: current listings, changes versus last seen state, and a digest line. It also covers the read-only nature and scope. It doesn't detail pagination or data freshness, but for a competitor-diff tool the description is reasonably complete.

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 mild context by saying competitor names are resolved, which aligns with the 'competitors' parameter, but it does not materially extend beyond the schema's parameter descriptions.

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 names a specific verb ('resolves'), a resource ('named competitors'), and the tool's purpose as a read-only diff. It also differentiates itself from ranking tools by explicitly stating no ranking-algorithm data is invented, making it distinguishable from siblings like rank_check.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description clearly conveys when to use the tool: when you need current competitor listings, changes from last seen state, and a digest line. The read-only metadata comparison phrase and the exclusion of ranking data provide context, though no explicit alternatives are named.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All ShipASO toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Tools are largely distinct by store, ownership, and analysis focus, with clear separation between App Store audits, Play audits, competitor diffs, keyword gaps, localization, rank checks, screenshots, and proof. A minor overlap exists between audit_app and preview_app, both of which read App Store listing data, though their outputs differ enough to avoid serious confusion.

Naming Consistency3/5

All names use snake_case and are readable, but the grammatical pattern is mixed: some are verb_noun (audit_app, propose_copy), some are noun phrases (keyword_gaps, localization_gaps, war_room), and a few are bare nouns (proof). There is no consistent verb-first or noun-first convention across the set.

Tool Count5/5

Twelve tools is well-scoped for an ASO intelligence server. Each tool addresses a meaningful part of the domain—auditing, competitor tracking, keyword/localization opportunities, rank checking, screenshot scoring, and proof—without feeling bloated or redundant.

Completeness5/5

The surface covers the core read-only ASO workflow: listing audits for both stores, owner-only Play audit, competitor monitoring, keyword and localization gaps, rank checks, screenshot coverage, draft copy proposals, and aggregate proof. The deliberate absence of write/publish tools is consistent with the server's stated human-approved loop, so no critical lifecycle gaps remain.

Resources