Fuul MCP Server

get_project_affiliate_total_stats

Retrieve aggregate affiliate totals for your project, filtering by status, region, audience, tier, or date range.

Instructions

Aggregated project-wide affiliate totals: GET /api/v1/projects/:projectId/affiliate-portal/total-stats. Optional filters: statuses, regions, audiences, tiers, dateRange, dateFrom, dateTo (see fuul-server GetTotalStatsDto). Example: {"project_id":""} or {"project_id":"","dateRange":"30d"}. If the API returns HTTP 429, wait Retry-After seconds (if present) before retrying.

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": {
      "project_id": "<project_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_project_affiliate_total_stats"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`project_id`	Yes
`statuses`	No
`regions`	No
`audiences`	No
`tiers`	No
`dateRange`	No
`dateFrom`	No
`dateTo`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.12.0May 30, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Discloses HTTP method, endpoint structure, and includes a retry hint for HTTP 429. Since no annotations are provided, this adds useful behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 sentences plus an example and retry hint. Front-loaded with key information, no superfluous content. Excellent conciseness.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Covers basic endpoint, filters, and retry behavior, but lacks details on response format, default behavior, and differentiation from similar tools (e.g., get_affiliate_portal_stats). No output schema increases the need for more contextual description.

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?

Lists filter names and provides an example JSON, but does not fully define each parameter's meaning or constraints. With 0% schema description coverage, the description offers some compensation but not comprehensive semantics.

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 'Aggregated project-wide affiliate totals' and provides the endpoint path, indicating a specific verb (GET) and resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_affiliate_portal_stats or get_project_affiliates_breakdown.

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 such as get_affiliate_portal_stats or get_project_affiliates_breakdown. Missing context on typical use cases or prerequisites.

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