Japan Payments (KOMOJU — konbini / cards / PayPay)
Server Details
Japan payments for AI agents — konbini コンビニ, card, PayPay via KOMOJU. Stateless, 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 payment status. There is no ambiguity between them.
Both tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern ('create_payment_link' and 'query_payment_status'), making it predictable and clear.
With only two tools, the server is minimal but covers the essential flow of creating a payment and checking its status. However, it feels slightly thin for a payment processing domain.
The tool surface lacks refund, cancel, or webhook management capabilities, which are significant gaps for a payment system. An agent would likely need additional operations.
Available Tools
2 toolscreate_payment_linkAInspect
Create a Japan payment link in JPY. Aggregates two Japanese gateways: KOMOJU (default — konbini コンビニ決済 convenience store, credit card, PayPay, bank transfer and more) and PayPay direct (Open Payment API ORDER_QR; send x-paypay-api-key/-api-secret/-merchant-id headers and it is auto-selected, or set provider). Returns a hosted checkout URL the buyer opens to pay. Bring your own KOMOJU secret key via the x-komoju-secret-key header (free test-mode keys from the KOMOJU dashboard; sk_test_ keys are safe, no real money moves). Money always flows buyer→KOMOJU→merchant; this service never touches funds.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| amount | Yes | Amount in JPY (integer, e.g. 1000 = ¥1,000) | |
| provider | No | Which gateway. Omit to auto-select: PayPay when x-paypay-* headers are present, otherwise KOMOJU. payment_types applies to KOMOJU only. | |
| return_url | No | Optional https URL to redirect the buyer to after payment completes. | |
| description | Yes | What this payment is for (kept in session metadata, ≤200 chars) | |
| payment_types | No | Restrict payment methods shown to the buyer (e.g. ["konbini"] for convenience-store only). Omit to show every method enabled on the merchant account. | |
| customer_email | No | Buyer email. Strongly recommended for konbini (KOMOJU emails the store payment code to the buyer). | |
| external_order_num | No | Your unique order reference (≤30 chars, alphanumeric). Auto-generated if omitted. |
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 funding flow (money flows buyer→KOMOJU→merchant) and key management (bring your own KOMOJU secret key). 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?
The description is moderately long but well-structured with key information front-loaded. It could be slightly more concise, but 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?
The description covers return value (hosted checkout URL), test-mode keys, and funding flow. For a tool with 7 parameters and no output schema, it is fairly 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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds context beyond the schema, e.g., amount is in JPY, description character limit, and header usage for keys.
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 Japan payment link in JPY, aggregates two gateways, and returns a hosted checkout URL. It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'query_payment_status' which is for querying 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 the tool (create a payment link) and provides guidance on provider selection and headers. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives beyond the sibling tool.
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 Japan payment (created by create_payment_link) has been paid. Fetches the KOMOJU session directly — a reliable pull-based alternative to webhooks.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| provider | No | Omit to auto-select by credential headers. | |
| 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 useful behavioral detail: fetches KOMOJU session directly, reliable pull-based check, confirming no mutation. 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, highly efficient. Front-loaded key information, no unnecessary words. 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?
Simple tool with low complexity. Main gap: no description of return format (but no output schema). Annotations compensate for safety. Adequate for straightforward payment status check.
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 detailed descriptions for both parameters. Description adds no extra meaning beyond schema; baseline 3 applies.
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?
States specific action ('check whether payment has been paid'), identifies resource ('Japan payment from create_payment_link'), and explicitly distinguishes from webhooks. Names sibling tool create_payment_link, making context clear.
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?
Provides clear context: describes as alternative to webhooks, explains auto-selection of provider by credential headers. Implies when to use (pull-based check) vs alternatives (webhooks for push). Lacks explicit when-not-to-use, but overall helpful.
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!