Read-only ASO snapshot of any App Store app (grade, lead rank, top-10 count, sample). No account or store push — the optimized copy + push commands stay behind the human-approved loop. Works without a key.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | No | App name, App Store URL, numeric id, or bundle id | |
| country | No | ISO country storefront, e.g. US | |
| bundleId | No | Exact bundle id (skips resolution) |
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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds useful behavioral context: no account needed, no store push, and the optimized copy/push commands remain behind human approval. It does not contradict annotations and provides meaningful extra behavior beyond what structured metadata conveys.
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?
Three tightly scoped sentences lead with the core purpose, then add the most important behavioral constraints, and end with the no-key requirement. Every sentence earns its place with no repetition or filler.
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?
The description covers the tool's scope, outputs, side effects, and authentication requirements in a compact form. Since there is no output schema, listing the snapshot contents (grade, lead rank, top-10 count, sample) helps fill that gap, though the exact meaning of 'sample' is left slightly implicit.
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 description coverage is 100%, so query, country, and bundleId are already well documented. The description does not add new parameter-level guidance, but it does not need to because the schema already defines accepted formats clearly. This matches the baseline of 3.
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 opens with 'Read-only ASO snapshot of any App Store app' and lists concrete outputs (grade, lead rank, top-10 count, sample). It clearly distinguishes preview_app from mutation-oriented siblings by emphasizing it is read-only and that push actions remain behind a human-approved loop.
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?
The description gives clear context: this is a safe, read-only snapshot that works without a key and does not push anything to the store. It implies use for quick previews rather than store modifications, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives such as audit_app or propose_copy as the 'when not to use' choices.
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.