Bangladesh Payments (SSLCommerz — bKash / Nagad)
Server Details
Bangladesh payments for AI agents — bKash / Nagad via SSLCommerz. 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 tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern: 'create_payment_link' and 'query_payment_status', making them predictable.
With only 2 tools, the server feels thin for a payment gateway. While it covers the basic flow, typical payment integrations include more operations like refund or void.
The server covers creating and checking payment status, but lacks refund, void, or webhook handling, which are common in payment systems.
Available Tools
4 toolscreate_payment_linkAInspect
Create a payment link in BDT for Bangladesh via SSLCommerz. Buyer pays with bKash, Nagad, Rocket mobile banking, cards, internet banking via SSLCommerz. Returns a hosted checkout URL the buyer opens to pay — payment completes automatically, no confirm step. Bring your own credentials via HTTP header (x-sslcommerz-store-id; free test credentials from developer.sslcommerz.com never move real money). Money always flows buyer→SSLCommerz→merchant; this service never touches funds.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| amount_bdt | Yes | Amount in BDT (decimals allowed), e.g. 100. Minimum 10. | |
| 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 significant behavioral context beyond annotations, explaining the automatic payment completion, the money flow (buyer->SSLCommerz->merchant), and that the service never touches funds. This aligns with annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) and adds value.
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 concise with no redundant sentences. It is front-loaded with the primary action and then provides essential details in a logical order. 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?
Despite no output schema, the description explains the return value (hosted checkout URL) and the payment flow. It covers the essential context for using the tool, though it could be slightly more explicit about the response structure.
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 compensates by explaining the authentication requirement (x-sslcommerz-store-id header) which is not in the schema, and the overall payment flow. This adds useful context beyond the parameter descriptions.
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 explicitly states it creates a payment link in BDT for Bangladesh via SSLCommerz, listing specific payment methods. It clearly distinguishes from the sibling tool 'query_payment_status' which focuses on querying 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 provides clear context on when to use the tool (to create payment links) and prerequisites such as credentials via HTTP headers. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it, though the sibling tool provides an alternative for querying.
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 Bangladesh payment (created by create_payment_link) has been paid. Queries SSLCommerz directly — pull-based, no webhook needed. paid=true when status is PAID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tran_id | Yes | The tran_id returned by create_payment_link |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate read-only and open-world. Description adds that it queries SSLCommerz directly and that paid=true corresponds to PAID status, providing useful behavioral context beyond 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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no redundant information. Every word 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 no output schema, description clarifies the return condition for paid=true. However, it omits details on other statuses or error responses, leaving minor gaps.
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 already describes tran_id as returned by create_payment_link. The description does not add substantial new meaning beyond the schema, so baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 a Bangladesh payment has been paid, using a specific verb and resource. It references its sibling create_payment_link, differentiating it as a query versus creation.
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?
Explicitly mentions it is pull-based with no webhook needed, contrasting with alternative push methods. However, it does not explicitly state when to avoid using this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
query_refund_statusARead-onlyInspect
Check the status of a refund initiated by refund_payment. Queries SSLCommerz directly using the refund_ref_id returned by refund_payment. refund_status is one of: refunded (done), processing (in progress), cancelled.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| refund_ref_id | Yes | The refund_ref_id returned by refund_payment |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Lists possible status values (refunded, processing, cancelled), adding value beyond annotations, but no disclosure of rate limits or error handling.
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 efficient sentences with clear front-loading of purpose, no redundant content.
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?
Provides status values and references SSLCommerz, but lacks output schema and error descriptions; sufficient for a simple query tool.
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?
Parameter description in schema already covers the same information; description does not add new meaning. Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline 3.
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 checks refund status from SSLCommerz, uses specific resource (refund_ref_id), and distinguishes from sibling tools like refund_payment.
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 context that it should be used after refund_payment with the refund_ref_id, 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.
refund_paymentADestructiveInspect
Refund a paid Bangladesh payment (created by create_payment_link) via SSLCommerz. Identify the payment by tran_id (the reference returned by create_payment_link — the tool looks it up to find the bank_tran_id and paid amount) OR pass bank_tran_id directly. Full refund by default; pass refund_amount_bdt for a partial refund (required when refunding by bank_tran_id, since the paid amount cannot be derived). Returns refund_ref_id (keep it to poll query_refund_status) and a first status read. Refunds respect the same owner policy guardrails (x-agentpay-max-amount) as payments — the refund amount is checked before anything is sent to SSLCommerz. The buyer must have PAID (query_payment_status = PAID) and the transaction be bank-settled before a refund can be initiated.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tran_id | No | The tran_id from create_payment_link. Looked up to find the bank_tran_id and paid amount. Provide this OR bank_tran_id. | |
| bank_tran_id | No | The SSLCommerz bank_tran_id (from query_payment_status once PAID). Provide this OR tran_id. If used, refund_amount_bdt is required. | |
| refund_remarks | No | Reason for the refund shown on the SSLCommerz record (≤255 chars). Defaults to "Refund". | |
| refund_trans_id | No | Optional your-side unique refund transaction id (≤30 chars) for reconciliation. | |
| refund_amount_bdt | No | Optional partial-refund amount in BDT (decimals allowed). Omit for a full refund of the paid amount (only possible when refunding by tran_id). |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description openly describes the refund process, including lookup logic, amount checks, and return values (refund_ref_id, first status). 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?
The description is a single paragraph that front-loads the core purpose. While it is relatively long, every sentence provides necessary detail. Minor improvement could be achieved with bullet points, but it is not overly verbose.
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 complex operation with 5 parameters, no output schema, and ties to sibling tools, the description covers prerequisites, process, return values, guardrails, and conditional requirements comprehensively.
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% with descriptions for all 5 parameters. The description adds conditional semantics (e.g., refund_amount_bdt required when using bank_tran_id) and explains the lookup from tran_id to bank_tran_id, beyond the schema.
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 refunds a paid Bangladesh payment via SSLCommerz, specifically for payments created by create_payment_link. It distinguishes from siblings: create_payment_link, query_payment_status, and query_refund_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 provides explicit guidance on identifier choice (tran_id vs bank_tran_id), when partial refund is required, and prerequisites (payment PAID and bank-settled). It mentions owner policy guardrails and references sibling tools for status checks.
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!