Estonia Payments (Stripe — cards / Apple Pay)
Server Details
Estonia payments for AI agents — cards / Apple Pay via Stripe. 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 4.3/5 across 6 of 6 tools scored.
Each tool has a unique and well-defined purpose: one-time payment creation, subscription creation, payment status query, subscription status query, refunding, and cancellation. No two tools overlap in functionality.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern using snake_case: cancel_subscription, create_payment_link, create_subscription_link, query_payment_status, query_subscription, refund_payment. Very predictable.
With 6 tools covering the core payment lifecycle (create, query, refund for payments; create, query, cancel for subscriptions), the count is well-scoped and avoids unnecessary complexity.
The tool set covers essential operations for payments and subscriptions. Missing features like updating a subscription or listing all payments are minor gaps that don't break core workflows.
Available Tools
6 toolscancel_subscriptionADestructiveIdempotentInspect
Cancel a subscription. By default the subscription stays active until the end of the current paid period (fair to the buyer); pass immediate=true to cancel right now.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | session_id (cs_...) or subscription_id (sub_...) | |
| immediate | No | true = cancel immediately. Default false = cancel at period end. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true. Description adds context: default keeps active until period end, immediate cancels now. 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 sentences, front-loaded with main action. Every word serves a purpose; no 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?
For a 2-parameter tool without output schema, description adequately covers behavior and parameter effects. Missing return format but not required.
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 parameter descriptions. Description adds value by explaining default behavior and fairness context, going beyond 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 uses a specific verb 'cancel' and resource 'subscription', clearly states the action. It distinguishes from siblings like refund_payment and query_subscription by focusing on cancellation behavior.
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 guidance on when to use immediate=true vs default (fair to buyer). However, does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or alternatives like refund.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
create_payment_linkAInspect
Create a payment link in EUR for Estonia via Stripe (Checkout Sessions). Buyer pays with cards, Apple Pay / Google Pay — whatever is enabled on the Stripe account. Returns a hosted checkout URL the buyer opens to pay — payment completes automatically, no confirm step. Bring your own credentials via HTTP header (x-stripe-secret-key; free test credentials from dashboard.stripe.com never move real money). Money always flows buyer→Stripe→merchant; this service never touches funds. Optional: issue_invoice=true auto-creates a VAT-ready invoice (PDF + hosted page, emailed to the buyer) after payment; collect_tax_id=true collects the buyer's business tax ID (e.g. EU VAT number) at checkout and puts it on the invoice.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| amount_eur | Yes | Amount in EUR (decimals allowed), e.g. 5.0. Minimum 0.5. | |
| 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. | |
| issue_invoice | No | true = Stripe automatically creates and emails a post-payment invoice (PDF + hosted invoice page). Ideal for B2B / VAT bookkeeping. Note: Stripe charges a small Invoicing fee per invoice issued. | |
| collect_tax_id | No | true = ask the buyer for their business tax ID (e.g. EU VAT number) on the checkout page; it appears on the invoice. Combine with issue_invoice for a VAT-compliant receipt. | |
| customer_email | No | Optional buyer email. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint=false, etc.), the description details the payment flow (auto-complete, no confirm step), money path (buyer→Stripe→merchant), authentication via HTTP header, and optional invoice/tax ID behavior. 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 fairly concise but packs essential details (payment flow, authentication, optional features). It is front-loaded with the core action and elaborates logically. Could be slightly shorter but remains informative.
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 6 parameters, no output schema, and moderate complexity, the description covers authentication, payment process, money handling, and optional features thoroughly. It states the return value (hosted checkout URL) and explains how each optional parameter affects behavior.
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 6 parameters. The description adds value by explaining the effect of issue_invoice and collect_tax_id, and mentioning the x-stripe-secret-key header. This goes beyond schema alone, though each parameter is already well-documented.
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 for Estonia via Stripe Checkout Sessions, handling one-time payments. It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_subscription_link (subscriptions), query_payment_status (queries), and refund_payment (refunds), making its purpose unambiguous.
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 usage for one-time EUR payments with optional invoices and tax ID collection, but does not explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., for subscriptions or refunds). Context from sibling tools helps, but direct guidance is lacking.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
create_subscription_linkAInspect
Create a recurring subscription checkout link (monthly/yearly/weekly billing) via Stripe. The buyer opens the URL, enters their card once, and is then charged automatically every period until canceled. Amount is per billing period in the local currency major unit. Respects the same owner policy guardrails as payments (the per-period amount is checked before anything is created).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| interval | No | Billing period. Default "month". | |
| amount_eur | Yes | Amount charged per billing period (local currency major unit) | |
| description | Yes | What the subscription is for (shown to the buyer, <=200 chars) | |
| success_url | No | Optional https URL to send the buyer to after subscribing. | |
| customer_email | No | Optional buyer email (pre-filled at checkout; receipt goes there). |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate a write operation with no destructive hint. The description adds that the per-period amount is checked before creation and respects owner policy guardrails, providing 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?
Three concise sentences front-load the main action and purpose. No unnecessary words, though the structure could be slightly more organized (e.g., bullet points).
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?
Covers core functionality and owner policy guardrails, but does not mention return value (a URL), expiry, or error conditions. No output schema to compensate. Adequate for a simple tool but missing key details.
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 description coverage is 100% with all parameters documented. The description clarifies 'amount_eur is per billing period in local currency major unit', but adds little beyond the schema. Baseline score 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?
Clearly states the tool creates a recurring subscription checkout link via Stripe, specifying billing intervals and explaining the automated charging process. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like one-time payment links.
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?
Implies use for recurring subscriptions and mentions owner policy guardrails, but does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives beyond the sibling tool names. The context is clear but lacks exclusions.
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 Estonia payment (created by create_payment_link) has been paid. Queries Stripe directly — pull-based, no webhook needed. paid=true when status is PAID. If the payment was created with issue_invoice=true, the result also includes invoice_url and invoice_pdf once paid.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| session_id | Yes | The session_id returned by create_payment_link |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds significant value beyond annotations. It specifies that the tool queries Stripe directly, details the condition for paid=true (status PAID), and mentions additional fields (invoice_url, invoice_pdf) when issue_invoice=true. No contradiction with readOnlyHint or openWorldHint.
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, consisting of three focused sentences. Each sentence adds essential information: purpose, mechanism, and conditional output. No extraneous 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?
The description covers purpose, behavior, and key output details. It lacks explanation of error handling or full response structure, but for a simple read-only query tool with good annotations, it is reasonably complete.
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 a single parameter (session_id) described as 'returned by create_payment_link'. The description does not add further semantics beyond what the schema provides, so 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's purpose: checking if an Estonia payment created by create_payment_link has been paid. It uses a specific verb (check) and resource (payment status). It distinguishes itself from siblings like create_payment_link and refund_payment by focusing on status retrieval.
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 that this tool is pull-based and does not require a webhook, implying when to use it. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the sibling context provides that guidance. The usage context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
query_subscriptionARead-onlyInspect
Check a subscription created by create_subscription_link. Accepts the session_id (cs_...) or subscription_id (sub_...). active=true when the subscription is ACTIVE or TRIALING; NOT_SUBSCRIBED_YET means the buyer has not completed checkout.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | session_id (cs_...) returned by create_subscription_link, or subscription_id (sub_...) |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true. The description adds valuable behavioral context by explaining the meaning of 'active=true' and 'NOT_SUBSCRIBED_YET', which helps the agent understand the response without an output schema.
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, no wasted words. The purpose is front-loaded, and the content is efficiently packed 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 no output schema, the description explains key response fields (active, NOT_SUBSCRIBED_YET) and the input relationship. It lacks error scenarios or edge cases, but is 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?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the parameter is already well-defined. The description repeats the accepted formats (cs_... or sub_...) but adds minimal extra meaning beyond confirming the relationship to 'create_subscription_link'.
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 'Check a subscription' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like 'cancel_subscription' and 'create_subscription_link' by targeting a different action or lifecycle stage.
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?
It clearly indicates the tool is for checking subscriptions created by 'create_subscription_link' and specifies acceptable input formats. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare with alternatives like 'query_payment_status'.
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. | |
| session_id | Yes | The session_id 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?
Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds details: full refund by default, partial via amount parameter, and guardrail checks before gateway. 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, no wasted words. Key action and defaults are 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?
Given two simple parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, parameters, and behavioral constraints. It does not specify error handling or what happens if guardrail check fails, but that's a minor gap.
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 both parameters. The description adds value by explaining the default behavior (full refund) and relating session_id to query_payment_status.
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 starts with a specific verb 'Refund' and resource 'paid payment', clearly distinguishing from sibling tools like query_payment_status and cancel_subscription. It also specifies the origin (created by 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 states when to use (refunding payments created by create_payment_link) and mentions policy guardrails, but does not explicitly exclude other contexts or name alternatives, though sibling names provide context.
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!