BlindPay MCP Server

Delete Instances Members By User Id

DeleteV1InstancesMembersByUserId

DestructiveIdempotent

Removes a specified user from an instance by user ID, enabling cleanup of instance membership and access.

Instructions

Delete Member from Instance

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": {
      "id": "<id>",
      "user_id": "<user_id>"
    },
    "name": "DeleteV1InstancesMembersByUserId"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes
`user_id`	Yes
`Idempotency-Key`	No	Optional 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.

Addedv1.9.3Oct 24, 2026

TDQS

C2.6/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds no further behavioral context, such as irreversibility, side effects on related records, or permission requirements.

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?

The description is a single short phrase with no wasted words, but it is under-specified rather than appropriately concise. It lacks front-loaded detail needed for a destructive mutation.

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?

For a destructive member-deletion operation with no output schema and low parameter description coverage, the description is too thin. It does not explain what happens to the member, whether related data is affected, or what authorization is required.

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 33%: only Idempotency-Key is documented in the schema. The description does not explain the roles of id and user_id, leaving the two required parameters semantically unclear.

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 states a specific verb and resource: deleting a member from an instance. It is clear enough to distinguish the action from most siblings, though it does not explicitly say the deletion is scoped by user id or contrast with PutV1InstancesMembersByUserId.

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 guidance on when this tool should be used instead of GetV1InstancesMembers or PutV1InstancesMembersByUserId. No prerequisites, warnings, or conditions are provided.

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

Deploy Server