Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
BlindPay MCP Server

BlindPay MCP Server

by blindpaylabs
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Delete Instances Customers Blockchain Wallets By Id

DeleteV1InstancesCustomersBlockchainWalletsById
DestructiveIdempotent

Remove a blockchain wallet from a customer within a specific instance by providing the instance, customer, and wallet IDs.

Instructions

Remove Blockchain Wallet

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": {
      "instance_id": "<instance_id>",
      "customer_id": "<customer_id>",
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "DeleteV1InstancesCustomersBlockchainWalletsById"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYes
customer_idYesCustomer ID
instance_idYes
Idempotency-KeyNoOptional key to safely retry this request without performing the action twice. Retrying with the same key and an identical body replays the original response; reusing a key with a different body returns an error. Keys are kept for 24 hours.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv1.9.3

TDQS

C2.4/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. Beyond echoing "Remove", the description adds nothing about consequences — e.g. whether funds or addresses on the wallet are lost, whether deletion is reversible, or what happens to in-flight payouts.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three words with zero filler and the action front-loaded, but for a destructive delete this level of brevity is under-specification rather than efficiency.

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?

This is an irreversible destructive operation with no output schema and half the parameters undocumented. The description should at minimum state the resource scope (which blockchain wallet under which customer/instance) and any deletion consequences; it instead says nothing beyond the name.

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 description coverage is only 50%: customer_id and Idempotency-Key are documented, but id and instance_id carry only examples. The description supplies no parameter meaning at all, so the undocumented half of the identifiers is left entirely to inference.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

"Remove Blockchain Wallet" gives a clear verb and resource, so the basic action is unambiguous. However, it does nothing to separate this from close siblings such as DeleteV1InstancesCustomersWalletsById (non-blockchain wallet) or DeleteV1InstancesCustomersById, leaving the agent to infer the distinction from the long tool name alone.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. An agent must decide entirely from the name whether this is the correct delete endpoint versus the plain wallet delete sibling.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools