Georgia Payments (TBC Bank — TBC checkout)
Server Details
Georgia payments for AI agents — TBC checkout via TBC Bank. 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 its status. There is no overlap or ambiguity.
Both tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (create_payment_link, query_payment_status) and use snake_case throughout.
With only 2 tools, the set is at the lower boundary of acceptable. While each tool serves a clear function, the server feels thin for a payment integration.
The set covers creating a payment and checking its status, but lacks common operations like canceling a payment link or handling refunds, leaving notable gaps in the typical payment lifecycle.
Available Tools
2 toolscreate_payment_linkAInspect
Create a payment link in GEL for Georgia via TBC Bank (T-Pay). Buyer pays with cards, TBC internet banking, Apple Pay / Google Pay via TBC Bank checkout. Returns a hosted checkout URL the buyer opens to pay — payment completes automatically, no confirm step. Bring your own credentials via HTTP header (x-tbc-api-key; free test credentials from developers.tbcbank.ge never move real money). Money always flows buyer→TBC Bank→merchant; this service never touches funds.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| amount_gel | Yes | Amount in GEL (decimals allowed), e.g. 10. Minimum 1. | |
| 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. | |
| 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 reveals key behaviors: payment completes automatically with no confirm step, money flows buyer→TBC Bank→merchant, and the service never touches funds. This adds significant context.
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 with no redundancy. The core action is front-loaded, and every word adds value. It efficiently covers purpose, method, credentials, and behavioral notes.
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 parameter count and no output schema, the description explains the return value (hosted checkout URL) and prerequisites (API key). It could mention error handling or idempotency, but covers the essential context well.
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 the description adds clarity: amount_gel is in GEL with decimals and min 1, description is shown to buyer and ≤200 chars, and success_url is optional. The description enhances understanding beyond schema 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 clearly states the tool creates a payment link for Georgia using TBC Bank, specifies supported payment methods (cards, internet banking, Apple Pay/Google Pay), and distinguishes itself from the sibling 'query_payment_status' by focusing on 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?
The description explains when to use (to create payment links) and provides practical guidance on credentials (header-based API key, test credentials). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus alternatives like other 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 Georgia payment (created by create_payment_link) has been paid. Queries TBC Bank directly — pull-based, no webhook needed. paid=true when status is PAID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pay_id | Yes | The payId returned by create_payment_link |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Adds context beyond annotations: queries TBC Bank directly, pull-based, and clarifies return condition (paid=true when status PAID). Annotations already mark readOnly.
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, efficient with no waste.
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?
Complete for a simple query tool: explains source of pay_id, pull mechanism, and status condition. No output schema needed due to clear description of return value.
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 100% and description of pay_id is in schema. Description adds no extra semantics beyond referencing the value from create_payment_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?
Description clearly states the verb 'check' and resource 'Georgia payment' created by a specific sibling tool. Distinguishes from sibling create_payment_link by focusing on status query.
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?
Indicates when to use: after creation, pull-based without webhook. No explicit when-not-to-use, but clear context for standard usage.
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!