Brazil Payments (Mercado Pago — Pix / cards / boleto)
Server Details
Brazil payments for AI agents — Pix, cards, boleto via Mercado Pago. Never holds funds.
- Status
- Healthy
- 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 4.6/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.
The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: creating a payment link and querying payment status. There is no overlap or ambiguity.
Both tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (create_payment_link, query_payment_status), making them predictable.
With only two tools, the server is minimal but covers the core workflows for payment link creation and status checking. It is slightly under the typical 3-15 range but still reasonable for a focused service.
The server lacks essential operations for a payment system, such as cancel, refund, or listing payments. These gaps could cause agent failures in real-world use.
Available Tools
2 toolscreate_payment_linkAInspect
Create a Brazil payment link in BRL via Mercado Pago Checkout Pro, the largest payment platform in Latin America. Buyer pays with Pix (Brazil's instant payment rail), credit/debit card, or boleto — whatever is enabled on the merchant account. Returns a hosted checkout URL the buyer opens to pay — payment completes automatically, no confirm step. Amounts in BRL reais (decimals allowed, e.g. 49.90). Bring your own Mercado Pago access token via the x-mercadopago-access-token header (free TEST- tokens from mercadopago.com.br/developers; TEST- tokens never move real money). Money always flows buyer→Mercado Pago→merchant; this service never touches funds.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| amount_brl | Yes | Amount in BRL reais (e.g. 49.90). Minimum R$1. | |
| description | Yes | What this payment is for (shown to the buyer as the item title, ≤256 chars) | |
| failure_url | No | Optional https URL for failed payment. | |
| payer_email | No | Optional buyer email. | |
| success_url | No | Optional https URL to send the buyer to after approved payment. | |
| external_reference | No | Your unique order reference (≤64 chars). Auto-generated if omitted. Needed to query status later. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true), the description adds key behavioral details: the payment completes automatically, money flow (buyer->Mercado Pago->merchant), required header for access token, and test token usage. No contradictions with 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 well-structured and concise, with each sentence serving a purpose. It front-loads the primary action and includes essential details without 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?
Given the tool's complexity (6 parameters, no output schema), the description sufficiently explains the return value (hosted checkout URL), the payment flow, authentication requirement, and testing environment. It covers all necessary aspects for an AI 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?
Schema coverage is 100%, providing baseline 3. The description adds value by explaining that 'external_reference' is auto-generated if omitted and that 'description' is shown as the item title. It also mentions the header parameter for the access token, which is not in 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 verb 'Create', the resource 'Brazil payment link', the currency BRL, and the platform Mercado Pago Checkout Pro. It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'query_payment_status' by specifying creation functionality.
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 for when to use the tool (creating payment links for Brazilian customers) but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or directly reference the sibling tool as an alternative. However, the purpose is well-defined.
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 Brazil payment (created by create_payment_link) has been paid. Searches Mercado Pago payments by external_reference — a reliable pull-based alternative to webhooks. paid=true when status is APPROVED. NO_PAYMENT_YET means the buyer has not attempted payment.
| 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 provide readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds specific behavioral details: it searches by external_reference and defines the two possible outcomes ('paid=true' and 'NO_PAYMENT_YET'). This enhances transparency 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 providing essential information. The first sentence states the purpose, the second explains the mechanism, and the third defines the outcomes. No redundancy or fluff.
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 single-parameter tool without output schema, the description covers the main aspects: purpose, usage, and result interpretation. It could mention error cases or additional statuses, but it is sufficiently complete for most use cases.
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 'external_reference' is described in the schema (100% coverage). The description adds context by specifying it should be the one returned by create_payment_link, which adds meaning 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's verb ('check'), resource ('Brazil payment status'), and scope ('created by create_payment_link'). It distinguishes from the sibling tool by focusing on querying rather than 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?
The description explains it's a pull-based alternative to webhooks, giving clear context for when to use. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use or compare to other methods beyond webhooks.
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!