Malaysia Payments (Billplz — FPX / DuitNow QR / cards)
Server Details
Malaysia payments for AI agents — FPX banking, DuitNow QR, cards via Billplz. 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 4.6/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.
The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: one creates payment links, the other checks payment status. There is no ambiguity or overlap.
Both tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern: create_payment_link and query_payment_status, making the naming predictable.
With only 2 tools, the server feels under-scoped for a payment gateway. While it covers creation and status checking, it lacks other common operations like cancellation or refunds, making it borderline thin.
The server provides create and read status operations, but is missing update (e.g., modify bill), delete (void/cancel), and other lifecycle operations typical for payments. This leaves significant gaps for real-world use.
Available Tools
2 toolscreate_payment_linkAInspect
Create a Malaysia payment link in MYR via Billplz, a popular Malaysian payment gateway. Buyer pays with FPX online banking (every major Malaysian bank), DuitNow QR, or card — whatever is enabled on the merchant collection. Returns a hosted bill URL the buyer opens to pay — payment completes automatically, no confirm step. Amounts in MYR ringgit (decimals allowed, e.g. 49.90; minimum RM2). Billplz requires the buyer's name and email on every bill. Bring your own credentials via headers x-billplz-api-key AND x-billplz-collection-id (free from billplz-sandbox.com for testing — add x-billplz-mode: sandbox; billplz.com is production). Money always flows buyer→Billplz→merchant; this service never touches funds.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| provider | No | Which gateway. Omit to auto-select: toyyibPay when x-toyyibpay-* headers are present, otherwise Billplz. Billplz requires customer_name+customer_email; toyyibPay does not. | |
| amount_myr | Yes | Amount in MYR ringgit (e.g. 49.90; converted to cents internally). Minimum RM2. | |
| description | Yes | What this payment is for (shown on the bill, ≤200 chars) | |
| redirect_url | No | Optional https URL to send the buyer to after payment. | |
| customer_name | No | Buyer name (required by Billplz). | |
| customer_email | No | Buyer email (required by Billplz; the bill link is also emailed there). |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description goes beyond annotations by detailing behavioral traits: it is a write operation (create), payment completes automatically with no confirm step, money flows buyer→Billplz→merchant, and the service never touches funds. This adds valuable context not captured by annotations (readOnlyHint=false, etc.).
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 of about 100 words, efficiently conveying purpose, flow, and requirements without redundancy. It front-loads the core purpose. However, it could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points) for easier scanning.
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 has 6 parameters (2 required), no output schema, and moderate complexity, the description fully covers the payment flow, gateway specifics, credential requirements, test environment, and buyer experience. It leaves no obvious gaps.
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 adds meaning to all parameters: amount minimum (RM2) and decimals, description length limit, customer fields required for Billplz, redirect URL optional, and provider auto-selection logic. It also explains the internal conversion to cents.
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 Malaysia payment link via Billplz, specifying currency (MYR), payment methods (FPX, DuitNow QR, card), and the flow (returns hosted bill URL, automatic completion). It distinguishes from the sibling query_payment_status 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 explains when to use this tool (creating a payment link) and provides context on provider auto-selection based on headers, Billplz requirements (customer_name, customer_email), and credential setup (x-billplz-* headers, sandbox vs production). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or 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 Malaysia bill (created by create_payment_link) has been paid. Fetches the bill from Billplz directly — a reliable pull-based alternative to webhooks. paid=true when the bill is paid (status PAID; otherwise DUE).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| bill_id | Yes | The bill_id returned by create_payment_link (Billplz id or toyyibPay BillCode) | |
| provider | No | Omit to auto-select by credential headers. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. Description adds that it fetches from Billplz directly, explains paid=true when status is PAID toyyibPay, and mentions it's a pull-based alternative. 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, each concise and informative. No fluff, front-loaded with purpose.
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, description covers purpose, behavior, and output meaning. No output schema, but description provides status interpretation. Could mention provider selection more explicitly, but schema handles it.
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 well-described. Description adds context that bill_id comes from create_payment_link, but otherwise doesn't add much beyond schema. Baseline 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?
Description clearly states the tool checks whether a Malaysia bill (created by create_payment_link) has been paid. It specifies the action (check paid status) and resource (Malaysia bill), and distinguishes from webhooks as a reliable pull-based alternative.
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?
Description says when to use: to check payment status as alternative to webhooks. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use, but context is clear. Could mention alternatives like webhooks or other status checks, but adequate for a simple tool.
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!