Verified merchants accepting agentic payments on Lightning/L402/BOLT12/USDT — search, verify, pay.
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Average 3.9/5 across 6 of 6 tools scored.
Each tool has a distinct role: retrieving a merchant, listing taxonomies, searching, verifying endpoints, and checking credentials. No two tools overlap in purpose, so an agent can easily select the right one.
Most tools follow a clear verb_noun snake_case pattern (get_merchant, list_categories, list_rails, search_merchants, verify_payment_endpoint). The only exception is 'whoami', a standard command-style name that is still unambiguous and consistent with the lowercase underscore convention.
With 6 tools, the server is well-scoped for a directory service. Each tool addresses a necessary aspect of merchant discovery, lookup, verification, and authentication without unnecessary bloat or gaps.
The tool surface covers the full lifecycle for an agent using this directory: listing taxonomies, searching merchants, retrieving merchant details, verifying payment endpoints, and checking credentials. There are no obvious missing operations for the stated purpose.
get_merchantAInspectGet the full record for one merchant including all rails, payment endpoints, and OP attestation. Tier 2+ requires an AT credential.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It adds meaningful context about the contents of the record (all rails, payment endpoints, OP attestation) and discloses an authentication requirement (Tier 2+ requires AT credential). It does not mention side effects or error conditions, but as a read operation, the 'get' verb implies safety.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, each adding value. The first sentence front-loads the core action and scope, and the second provides a concise access requirement. No fluff or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple getter with one parameter and no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It explains what the record contains and the authentication prerequisite. It does not describe the response structure, but the listed contents give an adequate overview for a tool of this complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has one required 'id' parameter with no description (0% coverage). The description does not explicitly explain the parameter, but the phrase 'one merchant' gives context that 'id' is the merchant identifier. This is minimal compensation for the lack of schema description, falling short of fully detailing parameter format or constraints.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get'), the resource ('the full record for one merchant'), and the specific contents (all rails, payment endpoints, OP attestation). This distinguishes it from siblings like search_merchants (search vs. get) and list_categories/list_rails (which list subsets).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use it: when you need the full record for a single merchant, as opposed to search or listing. It provides a clear context but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. The credential requirement is a usage constraint, but not a comparison to siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
list_categoriesAInspectList the category taxonomy with merchant counts.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly indicates a read-only listing operation and specifies the output content (taxonomy and merchant counts). This is transparent for a zero-parameter tool, though it does not detail response format or potential errors.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It contains no superfluous words and is easy to parse. Every word adds value: 'List' (action), 'category taxonomy' (resource), 'with merchant counts' (additional output context).
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description must stand alone. It provides the essential information—what the tool lists and that merchant counts are included. It is not overly detailed, so a perfect score is not warranted, but for a simple list tool it is quite complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, and the baseline for such tools is 4. The description does not need to explain parameter semantics since there are none, and it does not introduce any confusion. It simply focuses on the operation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: listing the category taxonomy with merchant counts. The verb 'List' and resource 'category taxonomy' are specific, and the phrase 'with merchant counts' adds valuable detail. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_merchants and list_rails, which focus on merchants or other entities.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any conditions, exclusions, or relationships with sibling tools. For a simple list tool, some context (e.g., 'Use to get an overview of all categories and their merchant counts') would be helpful, but it is absent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
list_railsAInspectList supported payment rails and their current merchant counts.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description must fully convey behavioral expectations. It states the core listing behavior but does not disclose whether authentication is required, whether data is real-time, or any side effects (even though listing is inherently read-only, the explicit lack of such disclosure means the agent must assume).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence containing only essential information. Every word contributes value, with no fluff or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently conveys the output (a list of rails with merchant counts). No additional context is necessary for the agent to invoke it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters and an empty schema, so there is nothing to explain. The baseline of 4 applies because the description correctly avoids over-explaining and lets the schema's emptiness speak for itself.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: listing supported payment rails and their current merchant counts. The verb 'List' is specific, and the resource ('supported payment rails') is distinct from sibling tools dealing with merchants, categories, and endpoints.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or related tools that might outperform it, leaving the agent without decision support.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
search_merchantsAInspectSearch OP-verified merchants by rail, chain, category, agent-callable tier, trust tier, and free text. Ranked by trust tier then verification recency.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| rail | No | ||
| chain | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| query | No | ||
| category | No | ||
| accepts_usdc | No | ||
| trust_tier_min | No | ||
| agent_callable_tier | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It adds useful behavioral context by specifying that results are ranked by trust tier then verification recency, and that only OP-verified merchants are included. However, it does not disclose other potential behaviors such as pagination, rate limits, or authentication requirements.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the primary verb and resource, and every word adds value. There is no fluff or repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (8 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides a solid high-level overview and even mentions the ranking order, but it is not fully complete. It omits explanations of the limit parameter, accepts_usdc filter, and what 'OP-verified' entails, which could be important for an agent to use the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 8 parameters with 0% description coverage, but the description enumerates the key filter dimensions (rail, chain, category, agent-callable tier, trust tier, free text), which maps to most parameters. However, it does not explicitly explain the meaning of 'limit', 'accepts_usdc', or clarify that 'trust tier' refers to 'trust_tier_min' (a minimum filter). The enum values in the schema help fill in some gaps, but the description only partially compensates for the lack of parameter-level documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description has a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('OP-verified merchants'), and clearly lists the available filters (rail, chain, category, agent-callable tier, trust tier, free text). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_merchant by indicating a search over multiple criteria rather than fetching a single merchant.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description clearly implies when to use the tool: when looking for merchants matching any of the listed filters. It provides a clear context for use (search by various criteria), but it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or mention when to prefer get_merchant for a single merchant lookup.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
verify_payment_endpointAInspectRun a live check against a merchant's declared payment endpoint for a rail. Returns health, detail, and rail-specific evidence.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| rail | Yes | ||
| merchant_id | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool performs a 'live check' (indicating a network call) and returns health and evidence, but it omits potential side effects, authentication requirements, or rate-limit behavior. Some context is given, but not enough to fully inform the agent of behavioral traits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the action and expected outputs. There is no redundancy or filler; every phrase adds value. This is a model of conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the core action and output shape but misses usage guidance and parameter semantics. It is adequate for a simple verification tool but leaves gaps an agent would need to infer or otherwise discover.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has no descriptions and the overall schema_description_coverage is 0%. The description does not elaborate on merchant_id or rail beyond their literal names, nor does it explain the significance of the rail enum values or how they affect the check. Since the description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation, parameter semantics are weak.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states a specific action ('Run a live check') on a specific resource ('a merchant's declared payment endpoint for a rail') and indicates the return type ('health, detail, and rail-specific evidence'). This distinctly differentiates it from sibling tools like get_merchant, list_rails, and search_merchants, which are read/info tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies its use case (verifying a payment endpoint) but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or when not to use it. There is no mention of prerequisites like a valid merchant_id or supported rail, and no exclusions are provided. This is implied rather than explicit, so it earns a mid-range score.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
whoamiAInspectReport the resolved credential state and rate limits for the calling agent.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. The verb 'Report' suggests a read-only operation, and it discloses that it returns credential state and rate limits. However, it does not mention potential error conditions (e.g., unauthenticated), output structure, or whether it consumes rate limits. It provides some transparency but leaves gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is one succinct sentence of 11 words, front-loaded with the verb 'Report'. It contains no filler, redundancies, or irrelevant details, making it beautifully concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is very simple (0 parameters, no output schema). The description captures its purpose well, but it doesn't specify the exact format or fields returned in 'credential state' and 'rate limits'. Given the simplicity, this is nearly complete, but a bit more detail on return content would push it to 5.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are zero parameters, so the schema is empty. The description does not need to add parameter semantics. Per the rubric, 0 params earns a baseline of 4, and there's no additional value needed here.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'Report' and names concrete resources ('credential state and rate limits'), making it clear this is about the calling agent's own auth/rate limit info. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like get_merchant or search_merchants, which deal with merchant data.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context ('for the calling agent') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention that siblings are for merchant-related queries or that this should be used when needing self-identity/rate limits. Usage guidance is implied, not explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!
Sign in to create a connector for this server.