Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
BlindPay MCP Server

BlindPay MCP Server

by blindpaylabs
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Get Instances Payouts By Id

GetV1InstancesPayoutsById
Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieves a specific payout by its ID and instance ID so you can inspect payout details and status.

Instructions

Retrieve Payout

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": "GetV1InstancesPayoutsById"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYes
instance_idYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv1.9.3

TDQS

D1.6/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds nothing about error behavior (e.g., what happens with an unknown ID), rate limits, or required permissions, leaving the added value near zero.

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?

At three words it is technically concise, but this is under-specification rather than efficient conciseness. There is no front-loaded scope statement or any structure to help an agent decide on invocation.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness1/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, no parameter descriptions, and no annotations explaining the response, the description must carry the full burden of explaining what is returned (a payout object) and how identifiers relate. It does none of this.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, yet it says nothing about the two required parameters. It doesn't explain that 'id' is a payout identifier (e.g., po_...) scoped to a specific instance identified by instance_id.

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 Payout" restates the tool name/title with a verb and resource but adds no distinguishing information. It does not clarify that this fetches a single payout by ID versus the sibling GetV1InstancesPayouts, which lists payouts.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines1/5

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, no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid instance_id and payout ID), and no reference to alternatives such as the list endpoint. Only the name hints at by-ID retrieval.

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