Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
BlindPay MCP Server

BlindPay MCP Server

by blindpaylabs
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Post Instances Mint Usdb Stellar

PostV1InstancesMintUsdbStellar

Mint USDB on Stellar by providing a receiver address and amount, optionally including a signed XDR transaction for authorization.

Instructions

Mint USDB on Stellar

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>",
      "requestBody": "<requestBody>"
    },
    "name": "PostV1InstancesMintUsdbStellar"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
instance_idYes
requestBodyYes
Idempotency-KeyNoOptional 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.

  1. Addedv1.9.3

TDQS

C2.4/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is partially covered. The description adds nothing about the on-chain side effects of a mint, the trustline requirement, or why signedXdr may be needed, which is a real gap for an open-world blockchain mutation.

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?

Four words, front-loaded with the action and target, so there is no filler. But the brevity is under-specification rather than efficiency — nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is present.

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 state-changing, open-world blockchain mint with a nested request body, an optional signature field, and no output schema, this description is far too thin. An agent cannot tell what will be returned, what preconditions exist, or how the mint relates to trustline or delegate preparation tools.

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 the Idempotency-Key is documented in the schema, while instance_id, address, amount, and signedXdr have no descriptions. The description does not compensate at all — it never names or explains any parameter, including the ambiguous signedXdr field on a nested request body.

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

Purpose3/5

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

"Mint USDB on Stellar" states a specific verb (Mint) and resource (USDB), and the chain qualifier distinguishes it from the sibling PostV1InstancesMintUsdbSolana. However, it conveys nothing about scope, instance context, or what the mint actually involves, so it is only marginally more informative than the title.

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 guidance on when to use this versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites such as an existing asset trustline (the sibling PostV1InstancesCreateAssetTrustline hints one may be needed), no note about the optional signedXdr, and no exclusion criteria.

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