Read-only head-to-head rank war room for one of YOUR connected apps: your tracked-keyword rank history vs. live competitor positions on those same keywords. Reads stored data + live competitor ranks; writes nothing.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| appId | Yes | Id of a connected app you own | |
| competitors | No | Competitor names to compare (max 4) |
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 and openWorldHint, and the description reinforces this by stating it 'Reads stored data + live competitor ranks; writes nothing.' This adds useful context about what data sources are involved without contradicting the 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?
The description is two concise sentences with no filler. The key constraints and behavior are front-loaded, making it immediately scannable for an agent.
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 read-only comparator with two parameters, the description explains the input context and the nature of the comparison well. It does not detail output format or pagination, but since there is no output schema and the tool is simple, this is a minor gap rather than a critical omission.
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 the baseline is 3. The description adds framing by clarifying that appId refers to 'one of YOUR connected apps' and that competitors are compared on the same tracked keywords, but it does not provide substantial new parameter semantics beyond the schema.
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 clearly names a specific resource (one of your connected apps) and a specific action: comparing your tracked-keyword rank history against live competitor positions on the same keywords. It also immediately marks the operation as read-only, which distinguishes it from audit or update tools.
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 clearly states when to use this tool: when you want a head-to-head rank comparison for one of your own connected apps using tracked keywords and live competitor ranks. It does not explicitly name alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance, so it stops slightly short of full guidance.
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.