Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
BlindPay MCP Server

BlindPay MCP Server

by blindpaylabs
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Get Instances Customers Limit Increase

GetV1InstancesCustomersLimitIncrease
Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve limit increase requests for a specific customer within a BlindPay instance to review and manage payment limit adjustments.

Instructions

Retrieve Limit Increase Requests

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>"
    },
    "name": "GetV1InstancesCustomersLimitIncrease"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
customer_idYesCustomer ID
instance_idYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv1.9.3

TDQS

C2.6/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds no additional behavioral context such as pagination, authorization requirements, response shape, or scoping by customer/instance.

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 brief and front-loaded, but it is an under-specified fragment rather than a structured explanation. It is concise without wasting words, yet it omits useful context.

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 read-only retrieval endpoint with no output schema, the description should clarify what is returned and how the required identifiers scope the result. Instead, it only restates the resource name, leaving return and filtering behavior unspecified.

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%, and the description does not explain either required parameter. It does not clarify how instance_id and customer_id scope the limit increase requests being retrieved.

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, "Retrieve Limit Increase Requests," so the basic operation is clear. However, it does not distinguish this list-style GET from siblings such as PostV1InstancesCustomersLimitIncrease or GetV1InstancesLimitsCustomersById, leaving scope ambiguous.

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 to use this tool versus creating a limit increase request or fetching customer limits through another endpoint. No prerequisites or filtering context 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

Other Tools