Read-only localization expansion recommendations (ROI-sorted locales to add) for one of YOUR connected apps, from its most recent App Store Connect run. A static, bundled heuristic over the locales already read — no live install data is fabricated. Empty until you've run an ASC-connected pass.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| appId | Yes | Id of a connected app you own |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Description adds substantial behavior beyond the readOnlyHint: it is a static bundled heuristic, uses only already-read locales, does not fabricate live install data, and returns empty until an ASC pass exists. This directly informs agent expectations of freshness and output availability. No contradiction with annotations.
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?
Every sentence earns its place: core purpose, data-source caveat, and empty-state behavior. The most important qualifier ('Read-only... recommendations... for one of YOUR connected apps') is front-loaded, and the whole description is compact.
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 low-complexity single-parameter read tool, it covers the nature of the output (ROI-sorted locale recommendations), the data source and timing (most recent ASC run), and the empty condition. There is no output schema, but the return concept is clear enough for correct invocation.
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 already describes appId as a connected app owned by the user with 100% coverage. The description reinforces the connection and App Store Connect scope but provides no new parameter format, constraints, or examples, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 explicitly identifies a read-only recommendation tool for localization expansion, scoped to a connected app and latest App Store Connect run. It uses specific, distinct language ('ROI-sorted locales to add') that sets it apart from siblings like keyword_gaps and screenshot_coverage.
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?
It gives clear context: use this only for one of the user's connected apps and only after an ASC-connected pass, with an explicit empty state before then. It does not name alternative tools or state when-not-to-use it against a sibling, so it falls just short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
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.
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.
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.
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.