Refgrow MCP Server

delete_affiliate

Remove an affiliate and their referral data from your project using their email address. This tool helps manage affiliate programs by deleting outdated or inactive affiliates.

Instructions

Delete an affiliate from your project. This also removes their associated referral data.

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": {
      "email": "<email>"
    },
    "name": "delete_affiliate"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`email`	Yes	Email of the affiliate to delete

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.1Mar 12, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that deletion 'also removes their associated referral data', which adds valuable context about side effects. However, it lacks details on permissions, reversibility, or error handling, leaving gaps for a mutation tool.

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?

The description is two concise sentences that are front-loaded with the primary action and include important side-effect information. Every word earns its place without redundancy or fluff.

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?

For a destructive mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the main action and a key side effect, but lacks details on permissions, response format, or error conditions that would be helpful for an agent.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'email' parameter clearly documented. The description doesn't add any additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or edge cases, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 clearly states the action ('Delete') and resource ('an affiliate from your project'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete_conversion' or 'delete_coupon', which prevents a perfect score.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, consequences, or compare it to sibling tools like 'update_affiliate' or 'list_affiliates', leaving usage context unclear.

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

Deploy Server