blinkit-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

blinkit_verify_otp

Verifies the OTP sent via SMS and stores the access token to complete Blinkit login.

Instructions

Verify the OTP and persist the access_token. Step 2 of login. NOTE: a wrong code returns ok:false even though Blinkit reports success.

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": {
      "phone": "<phone>",
      "code": "<code>"
    },
    "name": "blinkit_verify_otp"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`code`	Yes	OTP received via SMS
`phone`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 7, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses that a wrong code returns ok:false despite Blinkit success and that access_token is persisted. Adequate for a simple verification tool.

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 sentences, front-loaded with action, efficient. The behavioral note is essential and included without extra 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 no output schema and only 2 simple parameters, description covers core action, step context, and a critical behavioral quirk. Slightly lacking in parameter detail but overall sufficient.

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 coverage is 50% (only 'code' described). Description does not add any parameter details beyond the schema; phone parameter remains undescribed.

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 it verifies OTP and persists access_token, and identifies itself as Step 2 of login, distinguishing it from sibling auth tools like blinkit_send_otp.

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?

Explicitly labeled as 'Step 2 of login' implying sequential use after sending OTP. Includes a note about behavior on wrong code, but lacks explicit exclusions or alternatives.

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