Jordan Payments (Tap Payments — cards / Apple Pay)
Server Details
Jordan payments for AI agents — cards / Apple Pay via Tap Payments. 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 4.4/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.
Each tool has a distinct purpose: creating a payment link, checking status, and refunding. No ambiguity between them.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with underscores (create_payment_link, query_payment_status, refund_payment), making them predictable.
Three tools is reasonable for a focused payment link service, though it is on the lower end. Could potentially include cancel or list operations, but the count is appropriate for the core workflow.
Covers the essential operations: create, query status, and refund. Missing a cancel/void tool for unpaid links, but the surface is largely complete for the domain.
Available Tools
3 toolscreate_payment_linkAInspect
Create a payment link in JOD for Jordan via Tap Payments. Buyer pays with cards, Apple Pay — whatever is enabled on the Tap 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-tap-secret-key; free test credentials from businesses.tap.company never move real money). Money always flows buyer→Tap Payments→merchant; this service never touches funds.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| amount_jod | Yes | Amount in JOD (decimals allowed), e.g. 10. Minimum 1. | |
| 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 Tap Payments; the receipt goes there). |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses important behavioral traits beyond annotations: money never touches service, credentials via header, test credentials behavior, automatic payment completion. No contradiction with readOnlyHint=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?
Description is concise, front-loaded with purpose, 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?
Covers workflow, authentication, money flow, and return value (hosted checkout URL). No output schema, but description explains what is returned. Adequate for an agent to invoke correctly.
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 parameters are already documented. Description adds minor context (e.g., decimals allowed, receipt goes to email) but does not substantially improve 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?
Description clearly states the verb 'Create', the resource 'payment link', and specifies currency (JOD) and gateway (Tap Payments). It distinguishes from sibling tools (query_payment_status, refund_payment) by focusing on payment link 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?
Describes when to use (to generate a hosted checkout URL) and provides context like buyer payment methods and automatic completion. Does not explicitly state when not to use, but the purpose is clear relative to siblings.
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 Jordan payment (created by create_payment_link) has been paid. Queries Tap Payments directly — pull-based, no webhook needed. paid=true when status is PAID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| charge_id | Yes | The charge_id (chg_...) returned by create_payment_link |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations by stating the tool queries Tap Payments directly and is pull-based, and clarifies that paid=true when status is PAID. This is consistent with the readOnlyHint annotation.
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 extremely concise, consisting of two sentences that front-load the purpose and key behavioral detail, with 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?
Given the tool's low complexity (one parameter, no output schema, annotations present), the description fully covers purpose, usage, and parameter meaning, making it complete for an agent to select and invoke correctly.
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?
The input schema provides 100% coverage for the single parameter charge_id, including a description. The tool's description does not add additional parameter information beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets the baseline without extra value.
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 ('Check whether a Jordan payment has been paid') and specifies the resource ('a Jordan payment created by create_payment_link'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_payment_link and refund_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 when to use this tool ('pull-based, no webhook needed'), providing clear context for proactive status checking, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives beyond the implied webhook approach.
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. | |
| charge_id | Yes | The charge_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 the description confirms mutation. It adds valuable behavioral details: default full refund, partial refund where supported, and that the amount is checked against owner policy guardrails before gateway processing. 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-loaded with the action and scope, with no redundant or irrelevant information. Every sentence adds value, making it highly efficient.
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 no output schema, the description covers the main use case and constraints well. However, it lacks details on idempotency (although idempotentHint=false is in annotations) and does not specify what the response looks like or potential errors. Overall, it is reasonably complete for a refund 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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already describes both parameters adequately. The description adds marginal value by explaining the default behavior and policy checks, but does not provide new semantic info 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 action ('Refund a paid payment') and specifies the scope (only payments created by create_payment_link). It distinguishes from sibling tools (create_payment_link, query_payment_status) by defining its unique role.
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 clear usage context: it applies to paid payments from create_payment_link, defaults to full refund, and allows partial refunds with an amount parameter. It also mentions guardrails (x-agentpay-max-amount). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., for unpaid payments) or directly compare with siblings.
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!