Affilync MCP Server

listAffiliateApplications

Read-only

Retrieve affiliate applications for your campaigns. Filter by status and paginate results to review pending, active, or rejected applications.

Instructions

List affiliate applications for your campaigns

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": "listAffiliateApplications"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`page`	No	Page number (default 1)
`page_size`	No	Items per page (default 20, max 50)
`application_status`	No	Filter by application status

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.1.0Jul 29, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description does not add behavioral details beyond what annotations provide, which is acceptable but not enhanced.

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?

Single sentence with no waste. It is front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word is necessary.

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?

Given the simple tool with optional parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate. It provides the essential purpose, and the schema covers parameter details. However, it could explicitly mention that it returns a paginated list of applications. Still, it is mostly complete for the tool's simplicity.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any meaning beyond the schema; it does not explain parameter usage or interactions (e.g., pagination behavior, filter effect).

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 clearly states the action (list) and resource (affiliate applications) with scope (for your campaigns). It is specific and distinguishes from sibling tools like listBrandAffiliates and decideApplication. The verb 'List' indicates a read operation.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not specify context, exclusions, or prerequisites. The agent must infer usage from the name and context signals alone.

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