Fuul MCP Server

list_rewards_payouts

Retrieve rewards payout history for affiliate programs. Filter by status, date range, and paginate results.

Instructions

Lists rewards payouts history: GET /api/v1/projects/:projectId/payouts/rewards-payouts. Optional page, page_size, status, from_date, to_date. Example: {"project_id":"","page":1}.

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": "list_rewards_payouts"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`project_id`	Yes
`page`	No
`page_size`	No
`status`	No
`from_date`	No
`to_date`	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?

No annotations provided. Description includes endpoint and optional parameters but does not describe response structure, pagination behavior, or authentication requirements. As a list operation, missing output schema is a gap.

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 example. Efficiently conveys purpose and key parameter fields without extraneous content.

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?

Despite having 6 parameters and no output schema, description omits response format, pagination details, error handling, and required permissions. Incomplete for a tool with moderate complexity.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema has 0% description coverage. Description only repeats parameter names without explaining semantics like acceptable status values or date formats. Example provides context for two parameters but insufficient for all six.

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?

Clearly states it lists rewards payouts history and provides the endpoint path. Distinguishes from related sibling tools by specifying 'history' vs pending payouts.

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?

Lists optional parameters but does not specify when to use this tool over alternatives like list_payouts_pending_approval. No explicit exclusions or prerequisites.

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