Italy Payments (Stripe — cards / Apple Pay)
Server Details
Italy 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 targets a distinct operation: creating one-time payments vs subscriptions, querying statuses, refunding, and canceling. No overlap between refund and cancel, or between create and query.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., create_payment_link, query_subscription, refund_payment) with underscores, making the set predictable.
With 6 tools, the surface is well-scoped for the domain of payment operations. Each tool earns its place without redundancy or excessive granularity.
Core lifecycle operations (create, query, refund, cancel) are covered. Missing update/subscription modification, but the set handles primary workflows adequately.
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?
The description adds value beyond annotations by detailing the default fair-to-buyer behavior and the immediate option. It aligns with the destructiveHint=true annotation and explains the timing of the effect.
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 with front-loaded verb and resource. Every word adds value, with no redundancy or 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 lack of output schema and the tool's simplicity, the description covers the main behavioral aspects and parameters. It could mention error cases, but overall it 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the 'fair to the buyer' nuance but does not significantly enhance parameter meaning beyond what is in 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 the action ('Cancel a subscription') and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools that create, query, or refund. The verb 'cancel' is specific and 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 explains when to use default (at period end) vs immediate cancellation, providing clear context for both modes. It does not explicitly state when not to use the tool, but the context is sufficient for a single-purpose tool.
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 Italy via Stripe (Checkout Sessions). Buyer pays with cards, Apple Pay / Google Pay, Klarna — 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?
The description goes beyond annotations by detailing the automatic payment completion, money flow (buyer → Stripe → merchant), credential requirement, and Stripe invoicing fee. It provides full behavioral context without contradicting 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 with 4-5 sentences, front-loading the core purpose. Every sentence contributes essential information without redundancy or 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?
The description covers purpose, payment flow, credentials, and optional features. It lacks explicit details on error handling, rate limits, or return value structure (though output schema is absent). Overall comprehensive for a payment link 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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context for issue_invoice and collect_tax_id, explaining their use cases (VAT bookkeeping, tax ID) and associated fees, which aids agent 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 the tool creates a payment link in EUR for Italy via Stripe, covering currency, geography, and provider. It is specific but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tool create_subscription_link, though the context implies one-time payment.
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 the payment flow and optional features (invoice, tax ID) but does not specify when to use this tool vs alternatives like create_subscription_link or when not to use it. No explicit exclusions or alternative guidance is provided.
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?
The description details the checkout flow (buyer opens URL, enters card, auto-charged until canceled) and guardrails (ownership check). This adds significant context beyond annotations, which only provide basic hints like readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false.
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 sentences, no fluff. Each sentence earns its place: purpose, flow, guardrails. Front-loaded with the main action.
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 the creation action, buyer experience, and guardrails well. Lacks mention of return value (e.g., URL) and error scenarios, which would be helpful for a side-effect tool. Still, it's fairly complete given no output schema.
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?
With 100% schema coverage, the description reinforces parameter meanings (e.g., amount per billing period in major unit) and clarifies how parameters like interval map to billing options. It adds context that ties parameters together, improving beyond the schema alone.
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 recurring subscription checkout link via Stripe, specifying billing intervals (monthly/yearly/weekly). It explicitly distinguishes from the sibling tool create_payment_link by emphasizing 'recurring' and 'until canceled'.
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 use for recurring billing and mentions owner policy guardrails, providing some context for when to use. However, it does not explicitly compare to siblings like create_payment_link or state when not to use, leaving room for improvement.
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 Italy 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?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. Description adds that it queries Stripe directly (pull-based, no webhook) and details behavior for paid status and invoice fields, which is helpful 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?
Two concise sentences that are front-loaded and contain 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?
Despite no output schema, description explains return conditions (paid=true, invoice fields) adequately. One parameter is fully documented. Complete 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 description coverage is 100% for the single parameter. The description reiterates that session_id comes from create_payment_link, which matches schema. No additional parameter semantics beyond what schema already provides.
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 Italy payment status from Stripe, references the creator tool create_payment_link, and specifies conditions for paid=true and additional invoice fields. It distinguishes from sibling tools by being specific to Italy payments and pull-based.
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 it is pull-based and no webhook needed, implying when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare to alternatives like webhook or other sibling tools.
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 and openWorldHint. The description adds detail on how status is represented (active true for ACTIVE/TRIALING, NOT_SUBSCRIBED_YET for incomplete checkout), which goes beyond annotations without contradiction.
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 the core action, and every sentence adds value. No unnecessary words.
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 read tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers input, output interpretation, and status meanings. Slight improvement could list other possible statuses, but it's 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% and describes the id parameter. The description repeats the same information, so it adds no new meaning 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?
The description states 'Check a subscription created by create_subscription_link.' It clearly identifies the verb 'check' and resource 'subscription', and distinguishes from sibling tools like cancel_subscription and create_subscription_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?
It specifies that the tool accepts session_id or subscription_id and explains the meaning of active true and NOT_SUBSCRIBED_YET. It gives clear context for when to use it, though it does not explicitly exclude scenarios.
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, so the write nature is clear. The description adds that refunds respect owner policy guardrails (x-agentpay-max-amount) and that the amount is checked before gateway submission, providing behavioral context beyond annotations. 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, no filler. First sentence communicates core function and default vs partial refund. Second sentence adds relevant guardrail context. Every sentence earns its place.
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 two-parameter tool with no output schema and clear annotations, the description covers purpose, default behavior, partial option, and policy enforcement. It lacks error handling details or idempotency, but overall complete given the tool's simplicity.
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 both parameters well-documented. The description reinforces that the amount parameter is optional for partial refunds and that omitting it triggers a full refund, adding value beyond the schema. The schema itself is clear, so a 4 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 refunds a paid payment created by create_payment_link, with explicit mention of full refund by default and optional partial refund. The verb 'Refund' is specific and distinguishes from siblings (create_payment_link, 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: to refund a paid payment, with details on full vs partial refund via the amount parameter. It also mentions policy guardrails, but does not explicitly exclude alternative tools or provide a when-not-to-use scenario. Siblings suggest no refund alternatives, so guidance is sufficient.
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!