get_affiliateRetrieve an affiliate record by ID to view its details, status, or related data for tracking and management.
Retrieves the affiliate with the given ID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Exact opaque native resource ID; no traversal or URL. | |
| account | No | Exact private profile label. Does not prove store ownership; mode applies to the main API key only. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds no behavioral context at all—nothing about the optional 'account' scoping, error behavior for missing IDs, or result shape.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One short, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though its brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined compression.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple single-ID getter with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, this is minimally sufficient—the agent can call it correctly. But with no usage routing to list_affiliates and no return-value note, gaps remain that the description could cheaply have closed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema, which sets the baseline at 3. The description mentions 'the given ID' but adds no semantics beyond what the schema already says, including nothing about the optional 'account' parameter.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb ('Retrieves') and resource ('the affiliate') and names the identifying key ('the given ID'). It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling list_affiliates or explain what an affiliate is in this API's domain.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this versus list_affiliates or any other sibling; there is no exclusion, prerequisite, or alternative named. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.