Ivory Coast Payments (Paystack — Orange Money / MTN MoMo)
Server Details
Ivory Coast payments for AI agents — Orange Money / MTN MoMo via Paystack. 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 3 of 3 tools scored.
Each tool has a distinct and non-overlapping purpose: creating a payment link, querying its status, and processing refunds. No ambiguity.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern using snake_case: create_payment_link, query_payment_status, refund_payment.
Three tools are exactly right for a payment link service: create, check status, and refund. Nothing excessive or missing.
Covers the core lifecycle: creation, status checking, and refunds. A minor gap is the absence of a tool to cancel or expire an unpaid link, but the set is still functional.
Available Tools
6 toolscancel_subscriptionADestructiveIdempotentInspect
Cancel (disable) a subscription so it will not renew. Pass the subscription_code (SUB_...) from query_subscription; email_token is resolved automatically if omitted.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| email_token | No | Optional email_token from query_subscription; auto-resolved when omitted. | |
| subscription_code | Yes | The subscription_code (SUB_...) returned by query_subscription |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate destructive and idempotent behavior. The description adds that cancellation prevents renewal, which is useful 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?
The description is two sentences, front-loads the purpose, and includes necessary usage details without extraneous words. Every sentence is 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?
While the tool is simple, the description lacks details on post-cancellation effects (e.g., immediate vs end-of-period, status changes). No output schema exists, so return values are not described. Slightly incomplete for a destructive action.
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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by specifying the format of subscription_code (SUB_...) and explaining auto-resolution of email_token, exceeding 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 the tool cancels/disables a subscription to prevent renewal. The verb 'cancel' and resource 'subscription' are specific, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like create, query, and refund.
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 provides explicit guidance: use subscription_code from query_subscription and notes email_token is auto-resolved. It does not explicitly mention when not to use, but the 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.
create_payment_linkAInspect
Create a payment link in XOF for Ivory Coast via Paystack. Buyer pays with Orange Money, MTN Mobile Money, Wave, cards — via Paystack. Returns a hosted checkout URL the buyer opens to pay — payment completes automatically, no confirm step. Bring your own credentials via HTTP header (x-paystack-secret-key; free test credentials from dashboard.paystack.com never move real money). Money always flows buyer→Paystack→merchant; this service never touches funds.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| amount_xof | Yes | Amount in XOF (integer), e.g. 5000. Minimum 500. | |
| 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. | |
| reference_id | No | Your unique order reference (≤40 chars). Auto-generated if omitted. | |
| customer_email | Yes | Buyer email (required by Paystack; the receipt goes there). |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate a write operation (readOnlyHint false). The description adds valuable behavioral traits: 'payment completes automatically, no confirm step' and 'money always flows buyer→Paystack→merchant; this service never touches funds,' which go 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?
The description is concise with four sentences, front-loading the main purpose. It could be slightly more structured but efficiently conveys key points without verbosity.
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, the description explains the return value (hosted checkout URL), payment flow, credential requirements, and that no confirm step is needed. This fully addresses the tool's operation and context.
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 baseline is 3. The description reiterates some parameter purposes (e.g., amount_xof as XOF, customer_email) but does not add significant new meaning 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 clearly states the tool creates a payment link in XOF for Ivory Coast via Paystack, specifying payment methods and returning a hosted checkout URL. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (query_payment_status, refund_payment) 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 implies when to use (to accept payments) and provides context on currency, location, and payment flow. It does not explicitly state when not to use or compare with alternatives, but sibling tool names clarify the creation role.
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 (XOF, monthly/yearly/weekly billing) via Paystack. The buyer opens the URL, authorizes their card once, and is then charged automatically every period until canceled. Amount is per billing period. 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_xof | Yes | Amount charged per billing period (XOF major unit) | |
| description | Yes | What the subscription is for (also used as the Paystack plan name, <=80 chars) | |
| success_url | No | Optional https URL to send the buyer to after subscribing. | |
| customer_email | Yes | Buyer email (required by Paystack; receipts and renewal notices go there). |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate it's not read-only, not idempotent, not destructive. The description adds: buyer authorizes once, automatic recurring charges, policy check before creation. 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?
Description is a single, efficient paragraph. Front-loads purpose. Every sentence adds necessary information without 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?
Covers creation flow, billing behavior, policy check. Does not describe output (the URL), but is adequate given schema coverage and annotations.
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 baseline 3. Description adds: amount is per billing period, description used as Paystack plan name, customer_email for receipts, interval defaults to month. Adds value 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 specifies the action (create), the resource (subscription checkout link), and key details (XOF currency, monthly/yearly/weekly billing via Paystack). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like create_payment_link (one-time) and cancel_subscription.
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's for recurring subscriptions and mentions policy guardrails. It implies usage for recurring billing vs. one-time payments. Could be more explicit about when not to use, but the sibling list provides context.
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 Ivory Coast payment (created by create_payment_link) has been paid. Queries Paystack directly — pull-based, no webhook needed. paid=true when status is PAID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| reference | Yes | The reference returned by create_payment_link |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint), the description adds that it queries Paystack directly, is pull-based, and specifies 'paid=true when status is PAID'. 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 concise sentences: first states purpose and scope, second adds technical detail. 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 status check tool, the description covers purpose, methodology, result condition, and integrates with sibling. No output schema needed given the simple response implied.
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 single parameter. Description adds slight context ('returned by create_payment_link') which ties to sibling, but is not essential 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 clearly states the verb 'check' and the resource 'payment status' for Ivory Coast payments, and distinguishes from siblings: create_payment_link creates, refund_payment refunds.
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: after creating a payment link, to check status via pull instead of waiting for a webhook. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives but provides clear context.
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, using the reference returned at creation. active=true when the subscription is ACTIVE; NOT_SUBSCRIBED_YET means the buyer has not completed checkout. The result includes subscription_code and email_token — keep them to cancel later.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| reference | Yes | The reference returned by create_subscription_link |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. Description adds value by explaining possible active status values and that the result includes subscription_code and email_token for later cancellation. No 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 purpose, no unnecessary 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?
For a simple read-only tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately explains the result fields and status values. It also hints at next steps (cancel later), making it 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%, and schema description already explains the reference parameter. The description reinforces the purpose of the parameter in context, adding marginal value 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?
Clearly states the verb 'check' and resource 'subscription', specifies it's for subscriptions created by create_subscription_link, and references the required parameter 'reference'. Distinguishes from siblings by focusing on subscription status rather than payment or cancellation.
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 (after creating a subscription link) and what the active field indicates. Does not explicitly state when not to use or compare with alternatives, but context is clear enough given sibling names.
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. | |
| reference | Yes | The reference 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?
Description aligns with destructiveHint=true, adds detail on guardrails and default 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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then guidelines. Zero wasted 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?
Covers key aspects: refund scope, partial support, guardrails. No output schema needed. Missing mention of errors or result, but sufficient for a well-annotated 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?
Description adds nuance over schema: 'where supported' for partial refunds, clarifying cross-gateway variability. Schema coverage 100% so baseline 3, extra value raises to 4.
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 states verb 'refund' and resource 'paid payment (created by create_payment_link)', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools create_payment_link and 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?
Explicitly notes full refund by default and partial refund via 'amount' parameter, and mentions guardrails. Does not explicitly tell when not to use, but sibling context covers alternatives.
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!