Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
BlindPay MCP Server

BlindPay MCP Server

by blindpaylabs
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Get Instances Customers By Id

GetV1InstancesCustomersById
Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve a specific customer's details from a BlindPay instance by providing the instance and customer IDs, so you can review or verify customer records.

Instructions

Retrieve Customer

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>",
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "GetV1InstancesCustomersById"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYes
instance_idYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv1.9.3

TDQS

C2/5.0
Behavior2/5

Does 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 covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond that — no mention of instance scoping, error behavior for an unknown id, or whether the customer record is expanded with related objects.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

Two words with nothing wasted, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. There is no front-loaded scope or routing information for the agent to act on.

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 lookup-by-id tool with no output schema and zero parameter documentation, the description should explain the required identifiers, what a returned customer contains, and how it differs from the list and mutate siblings. None of that is present.

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 0% and the description says nothing about the two required parameters. The schema's example values (re_…, in_… with 15-char bounds) hint at the id formats, but the description does not compensate for the missing semantics at all.

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

Purpose2/5

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

"Retrieve Customer" is a bare restatement of the tool name/title with no added specificity. It does not clarify that this fetches a single customer scoped to an instance, nor how it relates to the sibling GetV1InstancesCustomers (list) or Put/DeleteV1InstancesCustomersById.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives, despite the family containing GetV1InstancesCustomers (list), PutV1InstancesCustomersById (update) and DeleteV1InstancesCustomersById (remove). The agent must infer selection from the tool name alone.

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