Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
blinkit-mcp

blinkit-mcp

by yniks
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

blinkit_payment_status

Check the status of an in-flight UPI payment on Blinkit without re-initiating it. Returns pending, success, or failed.

Instructions

Check the status of the last (or a specific) in-flight UPI payment without re-initiating it. Returns pending / success / failed.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "blinkit_payment_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
cart_idNooptional; defaults to the most recent payment

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations provided. Description discloses return values (pending/success/failed) and says 'without re-initiating it', but does not mention side effects, permissions, or rate limits. Adequate but not rich.

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?

Two concise sentences: first states purpose and constraint, second states return values. Every word earns its place.

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?

For a simple status check with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, parameter behavior, and return values. Lacks error handling details but is 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the schema's description of 'cart_id' already states 'optional; defaults to the most recent payment'. The tool description repeats this, adding no new information beyond the schema.

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 uses specific verb 'Check' and resource 'in-flight UPI payment'. It clearly distinguishes from sibling blinkit_pay_upi which initiates payments.

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?

Describes when to use (check status, not initiate) and implies not to re-initiate. Could mention explicit alternative (blinkit_pay_upi) but clear from context.

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