Skip to main content
Glama

Affilio Link Tools

by link.affilio.mcp

Auth.Get Link

auth.get_link

Retrieve a single affiliate link by its ID.

Returns full link metadata: short URL, target URL, affiliate network classification, labels, visibility (public/private), QR code URL, click stats summary, archive status, and created/updated timestamps.

Requires Bearer token authentication. Returns an auth_error envelope if authentication fails or the link does not belong to the authenticated account.

Technical reference: https://affilio.link/blog/mcp-for-everyone

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
link_idYesLink ID returned by auth.create_link or auth.list_links.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / link_id / description
      Previous value: -"Unique link ID (MongoDB ObjectId string) returned when the link was created, or retrieved via auth.list_links. Example: '64a1f2b3c4d5e6f7a8b9c0d1'."New value: +"Link ID returned by auth.create_link or auth.list_links."
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / link_id / description
      Added value: +"Unique link ID (MongoDB ObjectId string) returned when the link was created, or retrieved via auth.list_links. Example: '64a1f2b3c4d5e6f7a8b9c0d1'."
  3. Added

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals that Bearer token authentication is required and that an auth_error envelope is returned on authentication failure or ownership mismatch. It does not explicitly state that the operation is non-mutating, but the 'Retrieve' and 'Returns' language plus the read-like tool name make that clear.

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 compact and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose, a concise list of returned fields, an auth requirement, and an error behavior note. Every sentence earns its place, and the technical reference is non-intrusive.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given a single required parameter, an existing output schema, and no annotations, the description is complete enough. It covers what the tool returns, how it authenticates, and how failures surface. An agent has enough information to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage: link_id is described as the ID returned by auth.create_link or auth.list_links. The description adds no additional parameter format, constraints, or resolution details beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb-resource pair: 'Retrieve a single affiliate link by its ID.' It also enumerates the full metadata returned, which differentiates it from sibling tools like auth.list_links (listing) and auth.get_link_stats (stats-focused). The scope is singular and unambiguous.

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?

Provides clear context: use when you have a link_id and need the full metadata record for one link. It also specifies the authentication requirement and failure envelope. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when NOT to use it, but the context is strong enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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

All Affilio Link Tools 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

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools map cleanly to distinct resources and actions, but auth.create_link vs shorten_url and check_url vs check_international_redirect have overlapping purposes. The descriptions do a good job of clarifying the differences, so ambiguity is limited.

Naming Consistency4/5

All names follow a readable snake_case verb_noun pattern, but auth.* tools are prefixed while utility tools like check_url, generate_qr, and shorten_url are not. Names like list_links and list_links_ranked are also close, though still predictable.

Tool Count3/5

20 tools is on the heavy side for this domain. Most cover distinct functions, but there is some redundancy such as list_links_ranked being a sorting variant of list_links and shorten_url overlapping with auth.create_link.

Completeness3/5

Link lifecycle coverage is solid: create, get, list, update, archive, stats, and visibility are all present. However, product management is incomplete with no update/delete/remove-link operations, and there is no unarchive or hard-delete for links.

Resources