AIVA MCP Server

aiva_get_affiliate

Retrieve affiliate details and performance statistics for tracking referral programs and analyzing partner contributions.

Instructions

Get affiliate details and stats.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "aiva_get_affiliate"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`affiliateId`	No	Affiliate ID
`code`	No	Referral code (alternative to ID)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jan 24, 2026

TDQS

C2.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation ('get'), but doesn't specify authentication needs, rate limits, error conditions, or the format of returned data. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, making it easy to parse. Every word earns its place, achieving optimal conciseness.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given no annotations, no output schema, and a description that only states the purpose without behavioral or usage details, the description is incomplete. For a tool that likely returns complex data (affiliate details and stats), more context is needed to help the agent understand what to expect and how to use it effectively.

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% description coverage, with clear parameter descriptions for 'affiliateId' and 'code'. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining the relationship between ID and code or usage examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states the tool's purpose as retrieving 'affiliate details and stats', which is clear but vague. It specifies the resource (affiliate) and verb (get), but doesn't distinguish it from sibling tools like 'aiva_list_affiliates' or clarify what 'details and stats' entail. This makes it minimally adequate but lacks specificity.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'aiva_list_affiliates' for listing affiliates or 'aiva_get_referrals' for related data, nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. This leaves the agent with no usage context.

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

Deploy Server