cashbackpro
Server Details
AliExpress cashback for AI assistants: search products, estimate cashback, get personal links.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Tool Definition Quality
Average 4.2/5 across 4 of 4 tools scored.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: calculating cashback estimates, generating affiliate links, retrieving product details, and searching products. There is no overlap in functionality.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (e.g., calculate_cashback, get_cashback_link), making them predictable and easy to distinguish.
With 4 tools, the set is well-scoped for a cashback service covering search, details, link generation, and estimation. It is neither too sparse nor overloaded.
The core workflow of searching products, getting details, generating links, and estimating cashback is covered. Minor gaps like account balance or transaction history exist but are likely out of scope for a public-facing server.
Available Tools
4 toolscalculate_cashbackAInspect
Estimate CashbackPro cashback for a purchase: commission = price × commission rate; the user receives a share of that commission depending on their CashbackPro level (Bronze 30% → Silver 45% → Gold 60% → Platinum 80%). Returns estimates for every level.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| price_usd | Yes | Product price in USD | |
| commission_rate_percent | Yes | AliExpress commission rate, percent (e.g. 7 for 7%) |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the calculation logic, commission rates per level, and that output is estimates for every level. It does not mention side effects (none expected) but is sufficiently transparent for a read-only estimation tool.
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?
The description is two sentences, well-structured, and contains no extraneous information. Every sentence adds value.
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?
Given two straightforward parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains input and output behavior. It could be slightly more explicit about the output format but is still complete enough.
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 coverage is 100%, providing a strong baseline. The description adds meaning by specifying commission_rate_percent as an AliExpress commission rate and explaining how it is used in the formula, going beyond the schema's description.
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?
The description clearly states it estimates cashback for a purchase using a specific formula and acknowledges returning estimates for all user levels. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_cashback_link (which likely provides a link) and search_products.
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?
The description implicitly indicates when to use this tool (to estimate cashback), but does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare with alternatives. It provides clear context but lacks exclusion criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_cashback_linkAInspect
Get a CashbackPro affiliate link for an AliExpress product. WITH a connected CashbackPro account (extension token as Authorization Bearer header, get it at https://cashbackpro.org/connect-extension) the user earns real cashback from purchases. WITHOUT a connected account the link still works but earns NO cashback — the affiliate commission supports CashbackPro as payment for this free service; you MUST tell the user this and mention they can connect an account to start earning cashback.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| product | Yes | AliExpress product URL or numeric product ID |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description fully covers behavior: with token earns cashback, without token link still works but earns no cashback, and mandates agent to inform user. Also provides token source URL.
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 sentences, front-loaded with action. Second sentence is lengthy but necessary for behavioral context. Could be slightly more concise.
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?
No output schema, and description does not mention what the tool returns (presumably the link). Also lacks error conditions. Adequate for a simple tool but incomplete for perfect clarity.
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 coverage is 100% with description 'AliExpress product URL or numeric product ID'. Tool description adds no further meaning beyond that.
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?
The description clearly states it gets a CashbackPro affiliate link for an AliExpress product, differentiating from sibling tools like calculate_cashback (cashback amount) and get_product_details.
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?
Explicitly explains when to use (to get affiliate link) and provides conditional behavior (with/without connected account) along with mandatory user disclosure requirement.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_product_detailsAInspect
Get authoritative details for a specific AliExpress product by its numeric product ID (price, rating, sales volume, commission rate, category).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| product_id | Yes | Numeric AliExpress product ID |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description fully bears the transparency burden. It describes the tool as retrieving authoritative details, which is a read operation, but does not disclose any potential side effects, rate limits, or authentication requirements. For a simple read tool this is adequate but not thorough.
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?
The description is a single sentence that directly states the purpose and key details. Every word contributes to understanding, with no extraneous information.
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?
Given the tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema, the description lists example return fields but does not specify the full structure. It is nearly complete for a read tool, though explicit mention of return format would be beneficial.
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?
The schema covers the single parameter with 100% description. The description adds that the ID is numeric and for AliExpress, which is minimal additional value beyond the schema's pattern constraint. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves authoritative details for a specific AliExpress product by numeric ID, listing the included attributes (price, rating, etc.), distinguishing it from sibling tools like search_products or get_cashback_link.
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?
The description specifies the required input (numeric product ID) and implies usage when needing product details. It does not explicitly mention when not to use or provide alternative tools, but sibling context makes the use case clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
search_productsAInspect
Search AliExpress products with cashback via CashbackPro. Returns compact product cards with prices, ratings and commission rates. Catalog quality filters (blocked categories, minimum price) are applied automatically.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max results (1-10) | |
| query | Yes | Search keywords, e.g. "wireless earbuds" | |
| max_price_usd | No | Optional price ceiling in USD |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It mentions output (compact product cards) and automatic filters (blocked categories, minimum price), but does not disclose read-only nature, rate limits, or side effects. Implicitly safe, but not explicit.
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 sentences with no wasted words. First sentence states purpose and returns; second adds behavioral detail. Front-loaded and efficient.
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?
No output schema, so description should detail return fields. It lists prices, ratings, commission rates but omits product identifiers (e.g., IDs) needed to use sibling tools. Also no guidance on pagination or error handling. Adequate but has clear gaps.
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 baseline is 3. Description does not add extra meaning beyond schema; automatic filter mention is about behavior, not parameters. No additional parameter guidance.
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?
Description uses specific verb 'search' and resource 'AliExpress products with cashback via CashbackPro'. It distinguishes from sibling tools (calculate_cashback, get_cashback_link, get_product_details) by focusing on searching multiple products and returning compact cards with prices, ratings, and commission rates.
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?
Description implies use for finding products with cashback, but does not explicitly state when not to use or compare to alternatives. Context is clear but lacks exclusion criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!