Latvia Payments (Stripe — cards / Apple Pay)
Server Details
Latvia 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 4.6/5 across 6 of 6 tools scored.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: payment creation, subscription creation, status queries, cancellation, and refund. There is no overlap in functionality.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., create_payment_link, query_subscription). The naming is predictable and easy to understand.
With 6 tools, the server is well-scoped for a payments and subscriptions service. Each tool serves a distinct and necessary function without being excessive or insufficient.
The tool set covers the main lifecycle of payments and subscriptions: creation, status queries, cancellation, and refund. Missing are update operations (e.g., change subscription plan) and listing tools, but core workflows are adequately supported.
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?
Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true, and the description adds nuance: the default is non-immediate (fair to buyer), and immediate is opt-in. This adds behavioral context 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 concise sentences: first states the action, second explains the default and optional immediate behavior. No fluff, efficient communication.
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 tool has no output schema, and the description doesn't mention return values or success/failure indications. However, given the simplicity of cancellation and the presence of idempotentHint, the description is largely complete for an AI agent to use.
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%; both parameters are described in the schema. The description reinforces the immediate parameter's purpose but doesn't add new semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 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 clearly states it cancels a subscription (specific verb+resource). It stands out from siblings like create_payment_link, query_payment_status, etc., which are all distinct operations.
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 default behavior (cancel at period end) and how to override with immediate=true. While it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use, the context is clear and sufficient for an AI agent.
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 Latvia via Stripe (Checkout Sessions). Buyer pays with cards, Apple Pay / Google Pay — 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?
Discloses payment flow (buyer->Stripe->merchant), automatic completion, credential handling, and side effects of optional parameters (e.g., Stripe fees for invoices). Annotations indicate write and non-destructive, which aligns with the description. 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 a single paragraph that front-loads the core action. Each sentence adds necessary detail (payment methods, return value, credentials, money flow, options). It is efficient but could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points for options). No 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 all essential aspects: action, region, payment methods, return value, authentication, money flow, and optional side-effects (invoice, tax ID). No output schema exists, but the description adequately explains the return value (hosted checkout URL). The tool's complexity (6 params, no nested objects) is fully addressed.
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 value by explaining implications: e.g., 'Stripe charges a small Invoicing fee' for issue_invoice, and 'appears on the invoice' for collect_tax_id, beyond the schema's basic descriptions.
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's action: 'Create a payment link in EUR for Latvia via Stripe (Checkout Sessions).' It specifies the region, currency, and payment gateway, distinguishing it from siblings like 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?
Provides clear context: when to use for Latvia/EUR payments via Stripe, explains optional features (invoice, tax ID), and mentions credential requirements. Does not explicitly state when not to use, but sibling names imply this is for one-time payments.
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?
Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), the description adds that the buyer opens a URL, enters card once, is charged automatically every period until canceled, and amount is checked before creation. No contradiction 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?
Three concise sentences, front-loaded with purpose and then behavioral details. No 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?
Despite no output schema, the description covers purpose, parameters, behavior, and guardrails. It could mention link expiration, but overall complete for a tool with 5 parameters.
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. The description adds meaning: 'Amount is per billing period in local currency major unit' for amount_eur, and 'what the subscription is for (shown to buyer)' for description, enhancing schema descriptions.
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 recurring subscription checkout link via Stripe, with billing periods (monthly/yearly/weekly). It distinguishes from siblings like create_payment_link (one-time) and cancel_subscription (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?
The description explains when to use (creating a recurring subscription) and implies not for one-time payments (sibling create_payment_link exists). It mentions owner policy guardrails but lacks explicit exclusion of alternatives.
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 Latvia 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?
Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint), the description adds that it queries Stripe directly, is pull-based, and details conditional output fields (invoice_url, invoice_pdf). This fully discloses behavior.
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 concise sentences with no redundancy. Each sentence adds value: purpose, mechanism, and conditional details. Front-loaded with key information.
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 with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, behavior, and conditional output. Could add error handling or rate limits, but not necessary for typical use.
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?
There is only one parameter with 100% schema description coverage. The description adds meaning by specifying it's 'returned by create_payment_link', providing source context 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 checks whether a Latvia payment (created by create_payment_link) has been paid. It specifies the resource and verb, and distinguishes 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 implies when to use: for checking payment status without webhooks. It mentions special behavior for issue_invoice=true. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or suggest alternatives among siblings.
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=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds value by explaining the status values and confirming the tool is for checking, not mutating. 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 concise sentences that front-load the main purpose and add necessary details without any fluff. 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?
Given the simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the input format and key response interpretation. The openWorldHint annotation suggests unknown statuses, but the description adequately addresses common cases.
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 a clear description of the 'id' parameter. The description adds clarity on the two possible ID formats (cs_... or sub_...), which goes beyond the schema's generic description.
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 'subscription', and distinguishes it from siblings like cancel_subscription and create_subscription_link by specifying that it queries an existing subscription created by the latter.
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 explains the accepted inputs (session_id or subscription_id) and interprets the response values (active=true meaning, NOT_SUBSCRIBED_YET meaning). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives like query_payment_status for payment queries.
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?
The description goes beyond annotations by detailing the default full refund behavior, the optional partial refund capability, and the policy amount checking before gateway processing. Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true, and the description confirms this safely. 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 concise with two sentences. The first sentence states the core purpose and default behavior, and the second adds policy context. No extraneous words or repetition.
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 simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema, no nested objects), the description covers all necessary aspects: what it does, how to use it, defaults, and policy constraints. An agent can use this tool correctly without additional documentation.
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?
Both parameters are fully described in the schema (100% coverage). The description adds extra context: it explains that omitting 'amount' triggers a full refund, and that 'session_id' is the same identifier used by query_payment_status. This adds meaning 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 that the tool refunds a paid payment, with full refund by default and optional partial refund. It specifies the resource (payment) and the action (refund), distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_payment_link or 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 implicitly indicates when to use the tool (for refunding payments) and mentions the policy guardrails, but does not explicitly exclude alternatives such as using cancel_subscription for subscription refunds. This is still clear enough for most agents.
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!