Skip to main content
Glama

mcp-knowledge

by io.github.getgapup

affiliate_fraud_clickstream_detector

Read-onlyIdempotent

Analyzes affiliate clickstream data from Common Crawl to flag potential fraud patterns (duplicate IPs, rapid clicks, device spoofing). Designed for CMOs to validate affiliate traffic quality and prevent budget waste. Inputs: affiliate network name and date range. Outputs: fraud probability score, suspicious IP list, and pattern analysis. Keywords: affiliate fraud detection, clickstream analysis, marketing attribution, traffic validation.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
asyncNoIf true, returns a job_id immediately (<200ms) instead of waiting for the result. Poll the result with job_result(job_id). Use for slow tools to avoid client timeouts.
thresholdNoFraud probability threshold (0.1-0.99)
date_rangeYes
affiliate_networkYesName of the affiliate network to analyze (e.g., 'CJ Affiliate', 'Rakuten')

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
statusYes
sourcesNo
warningsNo
suspicious_ipsNo
fraud_probabilityNoOverall fraud probability score (0-1)
patterns_detectedNo
total_clicks_analyzedNo

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds value by specifying output structure and data source, but does not expand on behavioral nuances like async polling or rate limits.

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?

The description is very concise, using four well-structured sentences covering purpose, audience, inputs, outputs, and keywords. No fluff—every sentence is meaningful.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema (not shown) and annotations, the description provides a complete high-level overview. It lacks details about the async parameter and polling behavior, but the context signals indicate this is adequate for a tool with moderate complexity.

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 75%, so the schema already documents required parameters. The description only repeats the required inputs without adding details about optional parameters like 'async' or 'threshold', offering minimal extra value.

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 clearly states the tool analyzes affiliate clickstream data from Common Crawl to detect fraud patterns, specifying both inputs and outputs. It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning its specific fraud detection focus and data source.

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 identifies the target audience (CMOs) and purpose (validate traffic quality, prevent budget waste), implying when to use. However, it does not contrast with alternatives like the generic 'fraud_detector' sibling, lacking explicit exclusions.

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

All mcp-knowledge 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

C2.8/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Many tools have overlapping purposes, especially in competitive intelligence, ESG, and risk assessment. For example, there are multiple tools for competitor analysis (competitive_deep_dive, competitor_intel, competitor_moves, etc.) with unclear boundaries. Agents would struggle to select the correct tool without deep understanding of subtle differences.

Naming Consistency2/5

Tool names are a mix of English and French, and follow no consistent pattern. Some use snake_case (e.g., abm_architect, action_plan_esg), while others are verb-focused (e.g., content_catalog, fx_rate). The lack of a uniform naming convention makes it hard for agents to predict tool names.

Tool Count1/5

With 271 tools, the server is excessively large. Even for a broad knowledge domain, this number of tools makes discovery and selection inefficient. Typical coherent servers have 3-15 tools; this has an order of magnitude more, indicating poor scoping.

Completeness3/5

The tool set covers many domains (compliance, finance, marketing, HR, etc.), but the coverage is uneven due to redundancy. Key areas have multiple overlapping tools, while some sub-domains may still have gaps. Overall, the surface is broad but not well-curated.

Resources