keap_list_affiliatesList referral-program affiliates. Supports filtering, ordering, and cursor pagination. Keap: GET /affiliates.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| filter | No | Filter expression, e.g. `given_name==John` (see Keap REST v2 filtering). | |
| order_by | No | Field to order results by, e.g. `given_name` or `-date_created`. | |
| page_size | No | Number of records per page (max 1000). | |
| page_token | No | Opaque pagination cursor from a prior response's next_page_token. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that results support filtering, ordering, and cursor pagination, though the schema's page_token description already discloses the cursor mechanics. It says nothing about result shape or rate limits, so it adds only modest value beyond structured data.
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?
Two front-loaded sentences plus a short endpoint mapping, with no wasted prose. Slightly downgraded because 'Keap: GET /affiliates' adds little for an agent that already has the tool. Efficient overall.
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 four-parameter read-only list endpoint with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose and pagination behavior sufficiently. It omits any hint of the affiliate record fields returned, but with no output schema this is a minor gap.
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 all four parameters (filter, order_by, page_size, page_token) are already documented with syntax and examples in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that. Baseline 3 is correct when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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?
Names a specific verb and resource ('List referral-program affiliates'), and the 'referral-program' qualifier clarifies what an affiliate is. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling list tools (contacts, campaigns, etc.), but the resource name uniquely identifies it. Clear enough to select correctly among siblings.
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?
Usage is only implied by the 'list' verb; the description never states when to prefer this over other list tools or what preconditions apply. The capability note about filtering/ordering/pagination gestures at context but offers no alternatives or exclusions. Adequate but with a clear gap.
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.