Fuul MCP Server

update_project_affiliate_public

Updates a project affiliate's settings such as alias, region, status, note, audiences, and tier protection. Uses dry-run validation before confirming changes.

Instructions

Updates a managed project affiliate: PATCH /api/v1/project-affiliates/:projectAffiliateId. Partial body (alias, region, status, note, audiences, tier_protection including null to clear, approve_project_tier_ids with reviewed_by_user_id). 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. dry_run then confirmed. Example dry_run: {"project_affiliate_id":"","alias":"New name","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": {
      "project_affiliate_id": "<project_affiliate_id>"
    },
    "name": "update_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.
`project_affiliate_id`	Yes	Projects-affiliates row id (returned by create_project_affiliate_public or the dashboard).
`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

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool performs a partial update, requires dry_run then confirmation, and uses project API key auth. It also mentions clearing tier_protection with null. No side effects or rate limits are noted, but the update nature is clear.

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?

The description is concise but packs essential information: endpoint, fields, auth, workflow, and an example. It is front-loaded and each sentence adds value. Slightly verbose due to the example but justified.

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 tool's complexity (12 parameters, no output schema), the description covers authentication, workflow, partial update, and a dry_run example. It lacks response details and deep parameter descriptions, but for an update tool it is fairly complete.

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 low (33%), but the description adds meaning for several parameters (e.g., 'tier_protection including null to clear', 'approve_project_tier_ids with reviewed_by_user_id'). However, some parameters like 'audiences' and 'region' are listed without additional context beyond the schema.

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 states 'Updates a managed project affiliate' and provides the exact endpoint URL, making the operation clear and specific. It lists the updatable fields, distinguishing it from related tools like create_project_affiliate_public.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explains the authentication requirement (project API key only, not OAuth) and the dry_run-before-confirmed workflow. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like creating or fetching affiliates.

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