Affilio Link Tools

Auth.Update Store

auth.update_store

Update your Affilio storefront's metadata.

Provide any combination of name, description, and layout — fields omitted are left unchanged. For full branding updates (colors, logo, custom fonts, banner image, favicon, footer text, embedded snippet) use the Affilio dashboard → Storefront settings.

Requires Bearer token authentication.

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

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	No	New display name for the store. Omit to leave unchanged.
`layout`	No	Product display layout. Accepted values: 'grid' (default card grid layout) or 'list' (vertical list view). Omit to leave unchanged.
`description`	No	New store description shown to storefront visitors. Supports plain text. Omit to leave unchanged.

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 storefront to update.",
-  "type": "string"
-}

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

Changed4 schema fields changedJun 26, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / description / description

Added value: +"New store description shown to storefront visitors. Supports plain text. Omit to leave unchanged."

addedInput schema / properties / layout / description

Added value: +"Product display layout. Accepted values: 'grid' (default card grid layout) or 'list' (vertical list view). Omit to leave unchanged."

addedInput schema / properties / name / description

Added value: +"New display name for the store. Omit to leave unchanged."

addedInput schema / properties / store_id / description

Added value: +"Unique store ID (MongoDB ObjectId string) of the storefront to update."

AddedJun 25, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that this is an update operation, clarifies partial-update behavior, and adds an authentication prerequisite: 'Requires Bearer token authentication.' It also scopes out full branding updates, which helps prevent misuse, though it does not discuss side effects or failure modes.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is compact and front-loaded: purpose, partial-update semantics, scope boundary, auth requirement, and a docs link all appear in a short, readable block. The technical reference URL is slightly marginal for an agent-focused description, but the overall structure is efficient and every substantive sentence earns its place.

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?

For a three-optional-parameter update tool, the description plus fully described input schema are nearly sufficient: it explains what can change, how partial updates work, what is out of scope, and what authentication is required. Since an output schema exists, the description does not need to document return values, though it could have mentioned what happens on success.

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 already documents all three parameters with 100% coverage, including accepted values for layout and individual 'omit to leave unchanged' notes. The description's 'fields omitted are left unchanged' line reinforces what the schema already says but does not add meaningful new parameter-level information.

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+resource: 'Update your Affilio storefront's metadata,' and then lists the exact modifiable fields (name, description, layout). This clearly separates it from sibling tools like auth.update_link and auth.get_store, so an agent can identify what this tool is for without guessing.

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 gives concrete usage guidance: 'Provide any combination of name, description, and layout' and notes that omitted fields are left unchanged, implying partial-update semantics. It also gives an explicit when-not: full branding updates should go through the Affilio dashboard rather than this tool, though it does not explicitly name a sibling MCP alternative.

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?