Affilio Link Tools

Auth.Get Store

auth.get_store

Retrieve your Affilio storefront configuration.

Returns full store configuration: name, description, public store URL/slug, branding settings (primary/secondary colors, logo, fonts, favicon, banner image), product display layout, footer text, embedded snippet, active status, and timestamps.

Requires Bearer token authentication.

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

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

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

Changed2 schema fields changedJul 9, 2026

removedInput schema / properties / store_id

Removed value: -{
-  "description": "Unique store ID (MongoDB ObjectId string) of the Affilio storefront to retrieve. Retrieve store IDs from the Affilio dashboard or via the API.",
-  "type": "string"
-}

removedInput schema / required
```
Removed value: -[
-  "store_id"
-]
```

Changed1 schema field changedJun 26, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / store_id / description

Added value: +"Unique store ID (MongoDB ObjectId string) of the Affilio storefront to retrieve. Retrieve store IDs from the Affilio dashboard or via the API."

AddedJun 25, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It explicitly states 'Retrieve' (a read operation), describes the full contents of the response, and calls out the Bearer token authentication requirement. It does not discuss deeper behavioral traits like rate limits or error semantics, but for a simple parameterless getter this is solid coverage.

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-organized: a one-line purpose, a bullet-style list of returned fields, an authentication note, and a reference link. Every sentence earns its place, and the core retrieval intent is front-loaded.

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?

For a parameterless read tool with an output schema available, the description is fully sufficient. It names the resource, details the return contents, and states the authentication requirement. Nothing needed to invoke the tool correctly is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has zero parameters and the schema has 100% description coverage, so there is nothing for the description to add regarding parameter meaning. The baseline for a zero-parameter tool is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on the return payload instead.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Retrieve your Affilio storefront configuration.' It lists the exact fields returned, distinguishing it clearly from sibling tools like auth.get_product or auth.list_links. An agent can immediately tell this is the read-only storefront-level getter.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description makes clear it returns store configuration and requires Bearer token authentication, giving a usable context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as auth.update_store or when a cached value might suffice. No exclusions or alternative routing are provided.

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 tools Inspect

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

Need Help?