Algeria Payments (Chargily Pay — EDAHABIA / CIB)
Server Details
Algeria payments for AI agents — EDAHABIA / CIB via Chargily Pay. Never holds funds.
- Status
- Unhealthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
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.
Tool Definition Quality
Average 4.4/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.
The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: one creates a payment link, the other queries payment status. There is no overlap or ambiguity.
Both tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern: create_payment_link and query_payment_status. Predictable and clear.
With only 2 tools, the server is minimal but still covers the essential actions for a payment link service. A few more (e.g., cancel payment) could be added, but current count is reasonable.
The server covers the core workflow of creating and checking payment status, but lacks operations like cancellation, refund, or webhook management. Minor gaps exist.
Available Tools
2 toolscreate_payment_linkAInspect
Create a payment link in DZD for Algeria via Chargily Pay. Buyer pays with EDAHABIA (Algérie Poste), CIB interbank cards — via Chargily Pay. Returns a hosted checkout URL the buyer opens to pay — payment completes automatically, no confirm step. Bring your own credentials via HTTP header (x-chargily-secret-key; free test credentials from pay.chargily.com never move real money). Money always flows buyer→Chargily Pay→merchant; this service never touches funds.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| amount_dzd | Yes | Amount in DZD (integer), e.g. 1000. Minimum 100. | |
| description | Yes | What this payment is for (shown to the buyer, ≤200 chars) | |
| success_url | No | Optional https URL to send the buyer to after payment. | |
| customer_email | No | Optional buyer email. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses that it returns a hosted checkout URL, payment completes automatically with no confirm step, authentication via HTTP header, and that the service never touches funds—adding significant detail beyond annotations. No contradiction.
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 paragraph of four sentences, front-loading the purpose. It is efficient without unnecessary detail, though it could be slightly more 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?
For a create tool with 4 parameters, good schema coverage, and no output schema, the description explains the return value (hosted checkout URL), the payment flow, authentication, and safety aspects—comprehensive context.
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?
Schema has 100% description coverage, so baseline 3 applies. The description does not add new parameter-specific details but ties them to the overall payment flow. No further elaboration needed.
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?
Clearly states the tool creates a payment link in DZD for Algeria via Chargily Pay, specifying payment methods (EDAHABIA, CIB). This distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'query_payment_status' which is for querying status, not creating.
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?
Provides clear context for use: when you need to create a payment link for Algerian buyers. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the sibling tool is clearly for different purposes, so the guidance is sufficient.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
query_payment_statusARead-onlyInspect
Check whether a Algeria payment (created by create_payment_link) has been paid. Queries Chargily Pay directly — pull-based, no webhook needed. paid=true when status is PAID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| checkout_id | Yes | The checkout id returned by create_payment_link |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds valuable context: it queries an external service (Chargily Pay), specifies the pull-based nature, and defines the meaning of paid=true. No contradictions.
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?
Three concise sentences with front-loaded purpose, no unnecessary words. Every sentence adds value.
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 simple parameter set, complete annotations, and implied output format, the description is fully adequate for the tool's purpose.
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?
Schema coverage is 100% and the description correctly references the parameter's origin (create_payment_link). However, it does not add new meaning beyond what the schema provides; it essentially restates the schema description.
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 checks whether an Algeria payment is paid, identifies the source (create_payment_link), and defines the output condition (paid=true when status is PAID). It distinctly differentiates from the sibling tool create_payment_link.
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 clear context: 'pull-based, no webhook needed' which helps the agent decide when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives beyond the implicit webhook.
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.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!