Guatemala Payments (Recurrente — cards (Recurrente))
Server Details
Guatemala payments for AI agents — cards (Recurrente) via Recurrente. 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 4.3/5 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), making them predictable and easy to use.
With only 2 tools, the server is minimal. While it covers the basic flow of creating and checking a payment, the small number may feel limited for a payment domain, but it is acceptable for a narrowly focused server.
The server covers creating a payment link and checking its status, but lacks operations like cancellation or refunds. For a full payment lifecycle, these gaps are notable but may be acceptable for the intended use case.
Available Tools
2 toolscreate_payment_linkAInspect
Create a payment link in GTQ for Guatemala via Recurrente. Buyer pays with cards (Visa/Mastercard) via Recurrente hosted 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-recurrente-public-key; free test credentials from app.recurrente.com never move real money). Money always flows buyer→Recurrente→merchant; this service never touches funds.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| amount_gtq | Yes | Amount in GTQ (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. | |
| customer_email | No | Optional buyer email. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are consistent (readOnlyHint=false, etc.) and the description adds valuable context: payment flow, credential requirements, test vs. production, and the fact that no confirm step is needed. This goes beyond the 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, front-loaded with the main action, and efficiently packs essential details without redundancy. 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?
Given the complexity (4 params, no output schema), the description covers the payment flow, credentials, and no-confirm-step behavior. It could be slightly improved by explicitly stating the return format, but it mentions 'returns a hosted checkout URL' which is 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 description coverage is 100% so baseline is 3. The description adds marginal value (e.g., decimals allowed for amount, description shown to buyer) but does not significantly enhance understanding 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 it creates a payment link in GTQ for Guatemala via Recurrente. It specifies the payment method, hosted checkout flow, and returns a URL, effectively distinguishing it from the sibling tool 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?
The description explains when to use this tool (to create a payment link) and provides context about credentials and money flow, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare with alternatives beyond the sibling list.
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 Guatemala payment (created by create_payment_link) has been paid. Queries Recurrente directly — pull-based, no webhook needed. paid=true when status is PAID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| checkout_id | Yes | The checkout id returned by create_payment_link |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. Description adds valuable details: direct query of Recurrente, pull-based, no webhook, meaning of paid=true. 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: purpose, mechanism, meaning of result. No fluff, 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?
No output schema, so description should fully explain return format. It mentions 'paid=true' but does not specify whether it returns a boolean or a status object, nor error handling. Partially 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% for the only parameter, checkout_id. Description reinforces its origin (created by create_payment_link) but adds minimal new semantic meaning beyond the schema description.
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 it checks if a Guatemala payment from create_payment_link has been paid, specifies the source (Recurrente), and defines 'paid=true'. Distinguishes from sibling tool 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?
Explicitly ties usage to create_payment_link and mentions pull-based nature without webhook. Could explicitly state when not to use, but context is clear enough.
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!