Indonesia Payments (Midtrans Snap — GoPay / QRIS / Alfamart / bank VA)
Server Details
Indonesia payments for AI agents — GoPay, QRIS, Alfamart, bank VA via Midtrans. 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 4.7/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.
Only two tools with clearly distinct purposes: one creates a payment link, the other queries its status. No overlap or ambiguity.
Both tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern: create_payment_link and query_payment_status, both using snake_case.
Two tools is minimal but reasonable for a focused integration covering payment link creation and status query. Slightly under but not extreme.
Core workflow (create and check) is covered, but missing essential operations like cancel, refund, or list transactions, which limits agent capabilities.
Available Tools
2 toolscreate_payment_linkAInspect
Create an Indonesia payment link in IDR via Midtrans Snap, a major Indonesian payment gateway. Buyer pays with GoPay, QRIS, ShopeePay, DANA, credit card, bank transfer virtual account (BCA/BNI/BRI/Permata/Mandiri VA), or at Alfamart / Indomaret convenience stores. Returns a hosted checkout URL (Snap page) the buyer opens to pay — payment completes automatically, no confirm step. Bring your own Midtrans server key via the x-midtrans-server-key header (free sandbox keys from dashboard.midtrans.com; SB-Mid-server- keys never move real money). Money always flows buyer→Midtrans→merchant; this service never touches funds.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| amount | Yes | Amount in IDR (integer, e.g. 150000 = Rp 150,000) | |
| order_id | No | Your unique order reference (6-50 chars, letters/digits/-/_/.). Auto-generated if omitted. | |
| provider | No | Which gateway. Omit to auto-select: Xendit when x-xendit-secret-key header is present, otherwise Midtrans. enabled_payments applies to Midtrans only. | |
| order_name | Yes | What this payment is for (shown to the buyer as the item name, ≤50 chars) | |
| customer_email | No | Optional buyer email (Midtrans sends the payment receipt there). | |
| enabled_payments | No | Restrict payment methods shown to the buyer, e.g. ["gopay","qris"] or ["alfamart","indomaret"]. Common values: gopay, qris, shopeepay, dana, credit_card, bca_va, bni_va, bri_va, permata_va, echannel, alfamart, indomaret, akulaku, kredivo. Omit to show every method enabled on the merchant account. | |
| finish_redirect_url | No | Optional https URL to send the buyer to after payment finishes. Omit to use the Snap default result screen. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate mutation (readOnlyHint=false). Description adds substantial behavioral context: payment flow (automatic completion), return value (hosted checkout URL), auth requirements (Midtrans server key), and money flow statement. 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?
Description is efficiently front-loaded with main action, followed by payment methods, flow, auth, and money flow. Every sentence adds value. Slightly long but justified by complexity.
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 complexity of payment integration, description covers all essentials: purpose, payment methods, flow, authentication, money flow, provider selection. Return value is stated (hosted checkout URL). No output schema needed.
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 good descriptions. Description adds value beyond schema by explaining provider selection logic, the meaning of order_name (shown to buyer), and listing common values for enabled_payments. No redundancy.
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 uses specific verb 'Create' with resource 'Indonesia payment link in IDR via Midtrans Snap'. Clearly distinguishes from sibling 'query_payment_status' by stating creation vs querying.
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?
Clearly states when to use: to create a payment link for Indonesian buyers. Mentions alternative gateway (Xendit) and how provider is auto-selected. Could be more explicit about when NOT to use, but given sibling is only a query tool, it's sufficient.
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 an Indonesia payment (created by create_payment_link) has been paid. Fetches the transaction status from Midtrans directly — a reliable pull-based alternative to webhooks. paid=true when transaction_status is settlement (or capture with fraud_status accept).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| order_id | Yes | The order_id returned by create_payment_link | |
| provider | No | Omit to auto-select by credential headers. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. Description adds value by explaining pull-based nature, direct Midtrans fetch, and specific condition for 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?
Two efficient sentences, front-loaded with purpose. No redundant words. 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?
Despite no output schema, description explains the return condition (paid=true logic). Covers key behavior for a simple read tool. Complete for the tool's complexity.
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 description adds meaning: order_id is from create_payment_link, provider can be omitted for auto-selection. Enhances understanding 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?
Clearly states the tool checks payment status for Indonesia payments created by create_payment_link, with specific verb 'check' and resource 'payment status'. Distinguishes from sibling tool by focusing on status checking vs. 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?
Explicitly describes when to use: as a pull-based alternative to webhooks. Not explicit about when not to use, but context implies it's for after payment link creation. Lacks exclusion scenarios but provides clear use case.
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!