Argentina Payments (Mercado Pago — Mercado Pago wallet / cuotas)
Server Details
Argentina payments for AI agents — Mercado Pago wallet / cuotas via Mercado Pago. 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 4.5/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.
Each tool has a uniquely distinct purpose: creating payment links, querying payment status, and refunding payments. There is no overlap or ambiguity between them.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern using snake_case: create_payment_link, query_payment_status, refund_payment. No deviations or mixed conventions.
With 3 tools, the server is well-scoped for its purpose—covering creation, status checking, and refunding. This is an appropriate number for a focused payment integration.
The toolset covers the essential operations for the payment lifecycle: create, query, and refund. There are no obvious gaps given the domain—unpaid cancellations are not needed as the checkout URL handles it externally.
Available Tools
3 toolscreate_payment_linkAInspect
Create a payment link in ARS for Argentina via Mercado Pago. Buyer pays with Mercado Pago wallet, cards with cuotas (installments), Rapipago / Pago Facil cash. Returns a hosted checkout URL the buyer opens to pay — payment completes automatically, no confirm step. Bring your own credentials via HTTP header (x-mercadopago-access-token; free test credentials from mercadopago.com developers never move real money). Money always flows buyer→Mercado Pago→merchant; this service never touches funds.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| amount_ars | Yes | Amount in ARS (decimals allowed), 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. | |
| reference_id | No | Your unique order reference (≤40 chars). Auto-generated if omitted. | |
| customer_email | No | Optional buyer email. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds value beyond annotations by detailing the payment flow (buyer→Mercado Pago→merchant), that payment completes automatically without a confirm step, and that the service never touches funds. Annotations already indicate a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) but lack specifics covered here.
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 but each sentence serves a purpose: action, payment methods, return behavior, credentials, money flow. No redundant information; clear and efficient.
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 tool with 5 parameters (2 required) and no output schema, the description covers the return value (hosted checkout URL), authentication, and money flow. It contrasts well with the sibling query_payment_status. No gaps remain.
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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds context like amount_ars allows decimals, minimum 100, description is shown to buyer, success_url is optional https, reference_id auto-generated, customer_email optional. This goes beyond schema definitions.
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 it creates a payment link in ARS for Argentina via Mercado Pago, listing specific payment methods and the output (hosted checkout URL). It distinguishes from the sibling tool query_payment_status by indicating this creates, not queries.
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 explains when to use this tool (for Argentina ARS payments) and provides important context like authentication via header and that test credentials don't move real money. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., for other currencies or payment providers).
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 Argentina payment (created by create_payment_link) has been paid. Queries Mercado Pago directly — pull-based, no webhook needed. paid=true when status is PAID (Mercado Pago APPROVED).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| external_reference | Yes | The external_reference 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. The description adds that it queries Mercado Pago directly, is pull-based, and defines the mapping of 'paid=true' to 'status PAID (APPROVED)', providing valuable behavioral context beyond the annotations.
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 (26 words), front-loaded with the primary purpose, and efficiently adds behavioral nuance in the second sentence. No wasted words.
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 tool with one parameter, the description ties to its sibling (create_payment_link), explains the return value semantics (paid=true means PAID/APPROVED), and notes it's pull-based. No output schema needed as the description clarifies the outcome.
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 100% description coverage for its single parameter, and the description repeats that information without adding extra detail. Baseline score 3 is appropriate as the schema already handles parameter semantics.
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 purpose: 'Check whether a Argentina payment... has been paid.' It specifies the verb 'Check', the resource 'payment status', and ties to a specific sibling tool (create_payment_link), distinguishing this tool as a non-creating, status-querying function.
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: after a payment link is created via create_payment_link, and highlights that it's pull-based and doesn't need a webhook. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare to alternative methods (e.g., webhooks).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
refund_paymentADestructiveInspect
Refund a paid payment (created by create_payment_link). Full refund by default; pass amount for a partial refund where supported. Refunds respect the same owner policy guardrails (x-agentpay-max-amount) as payments — the amount is checked before anything is sent to the gateway.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| amount | No | Optional partial-refund amount in the local currency major unit. Omit for a full refund. | |
| external_reference | Yes | The external_reference of the paid payment (same id used by query_payment_status) |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds behavioral details beyond annotations: full refund by default, partial refund option, and the guardrails check before gateway submission. This aligns with destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false without 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?
Three sentences, each adding essential information: purpose, default/option, and guardrails. No redundant or vague wording.
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 description covers main action, parameters, and pre-conditions. For a simple tool with no output schema, it is complete. A minor gap is not mentioning if a refund id or status is returned, but the overall context is sufficient.
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%, the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining default behavior and partial refund context for 'amount', improving understanding beyond the schema alone.
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 'Refund a paid payment (created by create_payment_link)', specifying the verb (refund), resource (paid payments), and origin. This distinguishes it from siblings (create_payment_link, query_payment_status).
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 explains the default (full refund) and optional partial refund, and mentions guardrails. It implicitly indicates when to use this tool (when refunding) but does not explicitly compare with alternatives or state when not to use it.
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!