Egypt Payments (Paymob — cards / mobile wallets)
Server Details
Egypt payments for AI agents — cards / mobile wallets via Paymob. 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 serves a distinct purpose: creating a payment link, querying status, and refunding. There is no overlap or ambiguity.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (create_payment_link, query_payment_status, refund_payment), making them predictable and easy to understand.
Three tools are well-scoped for a focused payment service. The number is neither too few nor too many, covering the essential operations without redundancy.
The tool set covers the main lifecycle (create, query, refund), but is missing a cancel/void operation for pending payments and does not handle batch listing. However, for a minimal viable service it is reasonably complete.
Available Tools
3 toolscreate_payment_linkAInspect
Create a payment link in EGP for Egypt via Paymob. Buyer pays with cards, mobile wallets (Vodafone Cash and others) via Paymob. Returns a hosted checkout URL the buyer opens to pay — payment completes automatically, no confirm step. Bring your own credentials via HTTP header (x-paymob-api-key; free test credentials from accept.paymob.com never move real money). Money always flows buyer→Paymob→merchant; this service never touches funds.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| amount_egp | Yes | Amount in EGP (decimals allowed), e.g. 50. Minimum 5. | |
| 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?
Beyond annotations, the description adds critical behavioral details: returns a hosted checkout URL, automatic payment completion, credential requirement via HTTP header, explanation that funds never touch this service, and the buyer-to-merchant flow. 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 concise (4 sentences) and well-structured: first sentence states purpose, second explains payment flow, third covers credentials, fourth explains money flow. Every sentence adds value without 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?
Given the complexity (5 params, no output schema), the description covers purpose, payment flow, credentials, and money safety. It does not specify the response format (e.g., JSON structure of the checkout URL), but overall it is nearly complete 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?
Schema coverage is 100%, and the description does not add significantly new information about parameters beyond what is in the schema. The description provides context for the amount (EGP with decimals) and description, but these are already covered in the schema. Baseline 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 creates a payment link in EGP for Egypt via Paymob, specifying the currency, region, and payment processor. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'query_payment_status' by focusing on creation rather than status checking.
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 usage, such as the automatic payment completion and no confirm step. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or direct users to the sibling for status queries, though the sibling name implies the alternative.
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 Egypt payment (created by create_payment_link) has been paid. Queries Paymob directly — pull-based, no webhook needed. paid=true when status is PAID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| order_id | Yes | The Paymob order_id returned by create_payment_link |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint), the description reveals it queries Paymob directly and defines the condition for paid=true (status equals PAID). 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?
Two concise sentences, no wasted words. First sentence states purpose, second provides behavioral detail. Well-structured and front-loaded.
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 check tool with one parameter, the description adequately covers purpose and behavior. No output schema is provided, but the description mentions the 'paid' field condition. Slight gap: could specify what happens if order not found, but overall 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% for the single parameter 'order_id'. The description adds semantic context by specifying it is the order_id returned by create_payment_link, linking to sibling tool.
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 if an Egypt payment has been paid, using a specific verb 'Check'. It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'create_payment_link' by focusing on querying status 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 mentions it is pull-based and no webhook needed, providing guidance on usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives besides the implicit sibling.
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 Egypt payment (created by create_payment_link) via Paymob. Provide transaction_id (from query_payment_status.transaction_id) OR order_id (the Paymob order_id from create_payment_link — the tool looks it up to find the transaction and its paid amount). Full refund by default (needs order_id so the paid amount can be looked up); pass amount_egp for a partial refund. Refunds respect the same owner policy guardrails (x-agentpay-max-amount) as payments — the refund amount is checked before anything is sent to Paymob.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| order_id | No | The Paymob order_id returned by create_payment_link. Provide this or transaction_id; required for a full refund (used to look up the paid amount). | |
| amount_egp | No | Optional partial-refund amount in EGP (decimals allowed). Omit for a full refund of the payment (order_id required). | |
| transaction_id | No | Paymob transaction id of the paid payment (from query_payment_status.transaction_id). Provide this or order_id. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true. Description adds context: refund respects same owner policy guardrails as payments, amount is checked before sending to Paymob, and full refund is default when order_id is provided. 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 efficient sentences that front-load the main action and provide necessary details without waste. Could be slightly more structured but overall concise.
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 and conditional parameters, the description covers identification (transaction_id or order_id), refund type (full or partial), and guardrails. Lacks mention of error scenarios or result format, but sufficient for core usage.
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%, but description adds interdependency details (order_id needed for full refund to look up paid amount, optional partial refund via amount_egp) that go beyond the 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 refunds a paid Egypt payment created by create_payment_link via Paymob, distinguishing it from sibling tools create_payment_link and 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?
Explicitly explains when to use each parameter (transaction_id vs order_id, amount_egp for partial refund) and mentions owner policy guardrails, but lacks an explicit statement on when not to use the tool.
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!