Nigeria Payments (Paystack — bank transfer / USSD)
Server Details
Nigeria payments for AI agents — bank transfer / USSD via Paystack. 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 clearly distinct purposes: one creates a payment link, the other queries its status. There is no overlap or ambiguity between them.
Both tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (create_payment_link, query_payment_status) using snake_case, making the naming predictable and clear.
Only two tools cover a very narrow scope of payment operations. While the server is focused on a specific flow (create link + check status), it feels underpowered for a payment domain, but not extremely so.
The tool surface lacks essential payment operations such as listing payments, refunding, canceling links, or handling webhooks. Agents may hit dead ends when managing the full payment lifecycle, leaving significant gaps.
Available Tools
6 toolscancel_subscriptionADestructiveIdempotentInspect
Cancel (disable) a subscription so it will not renew. Pass the subscription_code (SUB_...) from query_subscription; email_token is resolved automatically if omitted.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| email_token | No | Optional email_token from query_subscription; auto-resolved when omitted. | |
| subscription_code | Yes | The subscription_code (SUB_...) returned by query_subscription |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds behavioral detail: the subscription will not renew, and email_token auto-resolution. No contradictions, but lacks disclosure about reversibility or error handling.
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, front-loaded with purpose, then usage 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?
For a destructive tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core: what happens, required parameter, optional parameter behavior. Could mention error scenarios but not necessary.
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%, but the description adds context: subscription_code should come from query_subscription, and email_token is optional and auto-resolved. This goes beyond the basic 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?
Clearly states the tool cancels/disables a subscription so it will not renew. Specifies the resource (subscription) and distinguishes from sibling tools like query_subscription and 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 explicit guidance: pass the subscription_code from query_subscription, and notes that email_token is auto-resolved. However, it does not mention when to avoid using the tool (e.g., if already canceled).
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 NGN for Nigeria via Paystack. Buyer pays with cards, bank transfer, USSD, and mobile money via Paystack. Returns a hosted checkout URL the buyer opens to pay — payment completes automatically, no confirm step. Bring your own credentials via HTTP header (x-paystack-secret-key; free test credentials from dashboard.paystack.com never move real money). Money always flows buyer→Paystack→merchant; this service never touches funds.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| amount_ngn | Yes | Amount in NGN (decimals allowed), e.g. 1000. Minimum 100. | |
| 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 Paystack; the receipt goes there). |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations show this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds that money flows buyer→Paystack→merchant without the service touching funds, and requires credentials via HTTP header, providing useful context beyond 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 concise, front-loading the core purpose then explaining the flow and credentials. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy, making it efficient for an AI agent to parse.
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 the essential aspects: purpose, payment methods, credential requirements, and the automatic completion flow. Given the tool's complexity and lack of output schema, it provides enough context for correct invocation, though error handling or response details are omitted.
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 the schema already documents all 5 parameters. The description adds minor context (e.g., customer_email required by Paystack, amount minimum) but does not substantially 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 the tool's purpose: 'Create a payment link in NGN for Nigeria via Paystack.' It details the payment methods and the returned checkout URL, distinguishing it from the sibling tool 'query_payment_status' which checks 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 explains when to use the tool by specifying the payment methods and the automatic completion flow. It mentions credential requirements but does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare with alternatives beyond the sibling.
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 (NGN, monthly/yearly/weekly billing) via Paystack. The buyer opens the URL, authorizes their card once, and is then charged automatically every period until canceled. Amount is per billing period. 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_ngn | Yes | Amount charged per billing period (NGN major unit) | |
| description | Yes | What the subscription is for (also used as the Paystack plan name, <=80 chars) | |
| success_url | No | Optional https URL to send the buyer to after subscribing. | |
| customer_email | Yes | Buyer email (required by Paystack; receipts and renewal notices go there). |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true. The description adds that a URL is created, buyer authorizes once, auto-charge, and policy guardrails. 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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no unnecessary information. Could be slightly more concise but well-structured.
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?
No output schema, but description covers the creation process and guardrails. For a 5-param tool with 3 required, it provides sufficient context for an AI agent to use it 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% with descriptions. The description adds context: amount is per billing period, description used as plan name (≤80 chars), and customer_email is required by Paystack. Adds value 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?
The description clearly states the tool creates a recurring subscription checkout link with specific details (NGN, monthly/yearly/weekly billing) via Paystack. It distinguishes itself 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 the workflow (buyer opens URL, authorizes once, auto-charged until canceled) and mentions guardrails (per-period amount checked). It implies when to use, but doesn't explicitly state when not to use 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 Nigeria payment (created by create_payment_link) has been paid. Queries Paystack directly — pull-based, no webhook needed. paid=true when status is PAID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| reference | Yes | The reference returned by create_payment_link |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds behavioral context by stating it is pull-based and queries Paystack directly, and explains the output condition paid=true when status is PAID.
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-load the purpose, then method, then result semantics. No redundant 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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description completely covers purpose, method, output condition, and ties to the sibling tool create_payment_link.
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% for the single parameter 'reference'. The description does not add additional 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 the tool checks whether a Nigeria payment created by create_payment_link has been paid, distinguishing it from the sibling tool.
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 specifies the tool queries Paystack directly and that no webhook is needed, implying when to use it, but lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tool names beyond the sibling.
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, using the reference returned at creation. active=true when the subscription is ACTIVE; NOT_SUBSCRIBED_YET means the buyer has not completed checkout. The result includes subscription_code and email_token — keep them to cancel later.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| reference | Yes | The reference returned by create_subscription_link |
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 meaning of active=true and NOT_SUBSCRIBED_YET, and that the result includes subscription_code and email_token for cancellation, thus providing behavioral context beyond 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 sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states the purpose and usage, the second explains status meanings and output fields. Front-loaded and 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 the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description fully explains the return values (active flag, subscription_code, email_token) and their interpretation, making the tool complete for an AI agent.
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 description for the single parameter 'reference'. The description reiterates that it's 'the reference returned at creation', adding no new meaning beyond the schema. 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 checks a subscription created by create_subscription_link using the reference, and contrasts with sibling tools like cancel_subscription and query_payment_status. It specifies the verb 'check' and resource 'subscription', and distinguishes from siblings by referencing the creation flow and status values.
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 explicitly says to use the reference returned at creation, and advises keeping subscription_code and email_token for later cancellation, implying when to use next steps. It does not explicitly list when not to use, but the context is clear and the sibling list provides alternatives.
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. | |
| reference | Yes | The reference 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 give readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true; the description adds behavioral context: refunds respect policy guardrails and are checked before gateway. It explains default and partial behavior, adding value beyond 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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose, efficient and no fluff. Every sentence adds value: purpose/default behavior and policy context.
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 simplicity (2 params, no output schema), description covers purpose, parameters, and policy. Missing return value or error info, but not critical for a simple tool. Adds enough context.
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%, but description adds meaning: 'Full refund by default; pass amount for a partial refund where supported' clarifies default and constraints. Also links reference to query_payment_status for consistency.
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 states 'Refund a paid payment (created by create_payment_link)' with a specific verb and resource, and clarifies full vs partial refund. It distinguishes from siblings (create_payment_link, query_payment_status) by focusing on refunding.
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 context: full refund by default, optional amount for partial refund, and mentions owner policy guardrails. It implies when to use (refunding) but doesn't explicitly state when not to use, though no alternatives exist.
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!