Nepal Payments (Khalti — Khalti wallet)
Server Details
Nepal payments for AI agents — Khalti wallet via Khalti. 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 4.3/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.
The two tools have completely distinct purposes: creating a payment link and querying payment status. There is no overlap or ambiguity.
Both tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern: 'create_payment_link' and 'query_payment_status', making them predictable.
With only 2 tools, the set is borderline thin for a payment service, though the tools are meaningful and cover a basic workflow.
The core operations of creating a payment and checking status are covered, but missing operations like refund or cancellation leave a notable gap.
Available Tools
2 toolscreate_payment_linkAInspect
Create a payment link in NPR for Nepal via Khalti. Buyer pays with Khalti wallet, eBanking, mobile banking, cards. Returns a hosted checkout URL the buyer opens to pay — payment completes automatically, no confirm step. Bring your own credentials via HTTP header (x-khalti-secret-key; free test credentials from admin.khalti.com never move real money). Money always flows buyer→Khalti→merchant; this service never touches funds.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| amount_npr | Yes | Amount in NPR (decimals allowed), e.g. 100. Minimum 10. | |
| 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 | No | Optional buyer email. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds significant context beyond annotations: payment completes automatically, no confirm step, money flow buyer→Khalti→merchant, and that the service never touches funds. Annotations include readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, etc., and there is 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?
Description is a single, well-structured paragraph. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and every sentence adds value with no redundancy.
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 explains the return value (hosted checkout URL). It covers authentication, payment flow, and constraints. Could mention behavior of success_url more, but overall complete for the tool's complexity.
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 base is 3. The description adds some explanation (e.g., amount decimals, description char limit, auto-generated reference_id) but does not significantly enhance parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides.
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 'Create a payment link in NPR for Nepal via Khalti' and specifies the return value (hosted checkout URL). It is distinct from the sibling tool 'query_payment_status' which focuses on status checking.
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 context for when to use it (creating payment links for Nepal via Khalti) and mentions authentication requirements. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternative tools beyond the single sibling.
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 Nepal payment (created by create_payment_link) has been paid. Queries Khalti directly — pull-based, no webhook needed. paid=true when status is PAID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pidx | Yes | The pidx 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=true and openWorldHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds that it queries Khalti directly, which is beyond the 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?
Three concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose. Every sentence adds value: 'Check whether...', 'Queries Khalti directly...', 'paid=true when...'. No 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?
Given the lack of an output schema, the description only mentions 'paid=true when status is PAID'. It does not explain other possible statuses or the full return structure, leaving some ambiguity.
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% (pidx described). The description adds 'The pidx returned by create_payment_link', which is essentially the same as the schema's description. Minimal added value, baseline of 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?
The description clearly states the tool checks whether a Nepal payment has been paid, with a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('payment status'). It also distinguishes from the sibling 'create_payment_link' by being the counterpart for status checking.
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: to check payment status without needing a webhook, using a pull-based approach. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it, the context is clear and sufficient.
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!