Fuul MCP Server

create_project_affiliate_public

Create a project affiliate by providing user identifier and type. Use dry_run to validate before confirming.

Instructions

Creates a managed project affiliate: POST /api/v1/project-affiliates. Body matches server public DTO (user_identifier, user_identifier_type, optional alias, region, status, note, audiences, tier_protection, approve_project_tier_ids + reviewed_by_user_id when approving tiers). Auth: project API key only (pass project_api_key or set env FUUL_MCP_PROJECT_API_KEY). Dashboard OAuth from fuul-mcp login is not accepted on these routes. Use dry_run: true then confirmed: true like other write tools. Example dry_run: {"user_identifier":"0x...","user_identifier_type":"evm_address","dry_run":true}.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "user_identifier": "<user_identifier>",
      "user_identifier_type": "<user_identifier_type>"
    },
    "name": "create_project_affiliate_public"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`dry_run`	No	If true, validate and return a preview only; no server mutation.
`confirmed`	No	Must be true to perform the mutation after reviewing dry_run output.
`project_api_key`	No	Project API key used as Bearer for this request. Falls back to FUUL_MCP_PROJECT_API_KEY when omitted.
`user_identifier`	Yes
`user_identifier_type`	Yes
`alias`	No
`region`	No
`status`	No
`note`	No
`audiences`	No
`approve_project_tier_ids`	No
`reviewed_by_user_id`	No
`tier_protection`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.12.0May 30, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Describes the endpoint, auth requirements, and dry_run/confirmed flow, which is helpful. However, with no annotations, it omits details like response format, error handling, and idempotency, leaving gaps for a complex mutation.

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?

Concise single paragraph front-loads purpose then packs body fields, auth, and pattern. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. Could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points) but effective.

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 no output schema and 13 complex parameters, the description covers the endpoint, auth, body structure, and execution pattern adequately. It addresses major concerns for a creation tool, though missing return value info.

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 coverage is low (23%), but description adds context for many parameters (e.g., dry_run, confirmed, user_identifier_type, and the approve/review pattern). Still, several fields like region, status, note lack elaboration, so the description only partially compensates.

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?

Description clearly states it creates a managed project affiliate via POST, listing the endpoint and body fields. While it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like create_incentive, the verb+resource combination is specific and unambiguous.

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?

Provides important auth guidance (only project API key, not OAuth) and the dry_run/confirmed pattern. However, it lacks explicit when-to-use versus alternative create tools, leaving the agent to infer context.

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