affset MCP server

List zones

list_zones

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve traffic-source zones in your namespace with optional status and name filters. Get id, traffic source, status, postback URL, site URL, and publisher data through paginated results.

Instructions

List traffic-source zones in the current namespace. Filter by status and optionally by name (client-side contains match). Returns id, name, linked traffic source, status, postback_url, site_url, publisher. Paginated (default 20, max 100).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`sort`	No	Sort field. Default created_at.	created_at
`limit`	No	Page size (1–100). Default 20.
`order`	No	Sort order. Default desc.	desc
`offset`	No	Pagination offset. Default 0.
`status`	No	Filter by zone status.
`name_contains`	No	Case-insensitive substring match on zone name (client-side).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 29, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations establish that this is read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavior beyond annotations: client-side contains matching, the exact set of returned fields, and pagination defaults/max. This gives an agent a clear picture of what happens when the tool is invoked.

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?

Two efficiently packed sentences with no filler. The action and scope are front-loaded, followed by the most important filtering and return information, then pagination. Every clause earns its place.

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 read-only list tool with no output schema, this description is complete: it lists the returned fields, the filter options, and pagination limits. Combined with the annotations, an agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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%, and each parameter already has a clear description. The tool description mostly restates status/name_contains and pagination behavior without adding new parameter-level meaning, so the schema carries the weight.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description states a specific verb and resource ('List traffic-source zones') plus the namespace scope, which clearly conveys what the tool does. It is distinct enough from sibling list_traffic_sources, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools.

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 implies usage for browsing and filtering zones by status/name with pagination. However, it does not provide explicit guidance about when to choose this tool over alternatives like get_zone_url, list_traffic_sources, or create_zone.

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

List zones

Instructions

Input Schema

Schema Changelog

TDQS

Other Tools