blinkit-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

blinkit_checkout

Creates a server cart from items, binds a delivery address, and validates the cart. Returns a cart ID for order placement.

Instructions

Headless checkout prep: create a real server cart from items, bind the delivery address, and validate. Returns the server cart_id to pass to blinkit_prepare_order / blinkit_pay_upi.

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": {
      "items": "<items>",
      "address_id": "<address_id>"
    },
    "name": "blinkit_checkout"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`items`	Yes
`address_id`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 7, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It discloses that the tool creates a real server cart, binds address, and validates. However, it does not mention side effects (e.g., clearing previous cart), authorization needs, or rate limits, leaving some gaps.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is succinct, consisting of two sentences. The first sentence front-loads the core action, and the second sentence provides essential integration context. No wasted words.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given the tool's moderate complexity (nested array, two required params, no output schema), the description effectively covers purpose, action, and downstream usage. Minor gaps exist, such as missing details on item object fields or potential errors, but it remains largely sufficient.

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

Parameters3/5

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

The description implicitly references 'items' and 'address' but does not describe parameter structure or constraints. Schema coverage is 0%, so the description adds some context beyond property names but lacks formal semantics, such as field explanations or required nested fields.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: creating a server cart from items, binding delivery address, and validating. It also specifies the return value (cart_id) and its use in subsequent tools, distinguishing it from siblings.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly indicates that this tool is a prerequisite for blinkit_prepare_order and blinkit_pay_upi by stating the cart_id returned should be passed to them. It provides clear context for when to use, though it does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.