Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
BlindPay MCP Server

BlindPay MCP Server

by blindpaylabs
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Put Instances By Id

PutV1InstancesById
Idempotent

Update an existing BlindPay instance by ID to configure its name, branding, passkey verification, compliance contacts, and customer email settings.

Instructions

Update Instance

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": {
      "id": "<id>",
      "requestBody": "<requestBody>"
    },
    "name": "PutV1InstancesById"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
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. Changed1 schema field changedv1.10.0
    • changedInput schema / properties / requestBody / properties / email_notifications / description
      Previous value: -"Whether email notifications are enabled for this instance"New value: +"Whether payment emails (payout and PIX payin created) are sent to customers. Customer RFI emails are controlled by customer_rfi_emails_enabled."
  2. Addedv1.9.3

TDQS

D1.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond that — it does not say that fields are replaced vs merged, whether omitting a field clears it, or what authorization/partner-TOS constraints apply. It does not contradict annotations.

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 no waste but also no content; this is under-specification rather than conciseness. There is no front-loaded scope statement for the agent to act on.

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?

A mutating tool with a nested 11-property body, conditional requirements (partner_tos_terms_accepted requires partner_tos_link and partner_tos_screenshot), no output schema, and no description content at all. Nothing an agent needs to call this safely is present in the description.

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%, and the description compensates for none of it — the id, the requestBody, and the Idempotency-Key header are all unmentioned. The nested requestBody properties do carry rich inline descriptions, but the tool description itself adds zero semantic value for parameters.

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?

"Update Instance" merely restates the tool name and title (Put Instances By Id) with no added specificity. It does not identify what parts of the instance are updated, nor how it differs from siblings such as PutV1InstancesMembersByUserId or PutV1InstancesCustomersById, which also update sub-resources of an instance.

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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of the read counterpart GetV1InstancesById, and no note about required prerequisites. The agent is left to infer everything from the 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