Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
BlindPay MCP Server

BlindPay MCP Server

by blindpaylabs
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Get Instances Webhook Endpoints Portal Access

GetV1InstancesWebhookEndpointsPortalAccess
Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieves webhook portal access for a specified instance ID, so you can check portal permissions for webhook endpoints.

Instructions

Retrieve Webhook Portal Access

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>"
    },
    "name": "GetV1InstancesWebhookEndpointsPortalAccess"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
instance_idYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv1.9.3

TDQS

C2.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds no behavioral context such as whether access is scoped to the caller, whether it expires, or whether it requires elevated permissions — for a security-adjacent credential retrieval, that silence is notable.

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?

It is a single short sentence with no filler, so nothing is wasted — but the brevity reflects under-specification rather than economy. There is no front-loaded detail an agent could 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?

With no output schema, the description is the only place to learn what is returned (portal URL? credential? access flags?) and it says nothing. For a tool in a webhook/credential area of a large API surface, this is insufficient for correct invocation.

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%, leaving the single required instance_id documented only by type, example format, and length bounds. The description does not explain what an instance is or how the ID relates to webhook endpoints, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

The description 'Retrieve Webhook Portal Access' essentially paraphrases the tool name and title without adding specificity. It's unclear what 'portal access' means (a URL, a token, permissions?) and nothing distinguishes it from nearby siblings like GetV1InstancesWebhookEndpoints or GetV1InstancesWebhookEndpointsSecret.

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 the webhook endpoint or webhook secret siblings. No prerequisites, no exclusions, no context about when portal access is needed.

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