Norway Payments (Stripe — cards / Klarna)
Server Details
Norway payments for AI agents — cards / Klarna 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 4.2/5 across 6 of 6 tools scored. Lowest: 3.6/5.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: payment creation vs subscription creation, querying payment vs subscription status, cancellation, and refund. No overlap or ambiguity.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., create_payment_link, cancel_subscription), making them predictable and easy to distinguish.
With 6 tools covering creation, querying, cancellation, and refund of both payments and subscriptions, the count is well-scoped for the server's purpose without unnecessary bloat.
The tool set covers core CRUD operations for payments and subscriptions (create, read, cancel, refund), but lacks an update tool for subscriptions (e.g., change plan) and a listing tool, which are minor gaps.
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 indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, which match cancellation. The description adds nuance about default behavior being fair and immediate option, without contradicting anything.
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 core action ('Cancel a subscription') and efficiently explain the key behavioral toggle. 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?
For a simple cancellation tool with rich annotations and schema, the description adequately covers the essential behavioral difference. Lacking explicit mention of response/confirmation, but not critical.
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 covers both parameters fully (100% coverage). Description adds value by explaining the business logic behind the default false for immediate, and acceptable ID formats (cs_... or sub_...).
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 'Cancel a subscription' and distinguishes between default (end of period) and immediate cancellation. This differentiates it from sibling tools like create_payment_link or 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?
It explains when to use immediate=true vs default false, providing context for fair treatment of buyers. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternatives, though sibling context is clear.
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 NOK for Norway via Stripe (Checkout Sessions). Buyer pays with cards, Klarna, 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_nok | Yes | Amount in NOK (decimals allowed), e.g. 30. Minimum 3. | |
| 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?
The description thoroughly explains the payment flow: automatic completion, no confirm step, fund flow (buyer→Stripe→merchant), and credential requirements. No contradiction with annotations; readOnlyHint=false matches creation 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?
The description is a single, well-structured paragraph that front-loads the core purpose. While fairly long, every sentence adds value (payment methods, return URL, invoice features, credentials). Slight room for trimming but minimal fluff.
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 tool's output (hosted checkout URL), all parameters in context, and includes safety notes about test credentials. For a creation tool without output schema, it is largely complete, though edge cases or error handling are not mentioned.
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 significant value beyond schema descriptions—e.g., explaining 'issue_invoice=true' creates a VAT-ready invoice and 'collect_tax_id=true' collects buyer's tax ID. It enriches understanding of parameters.
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 NOK for Norway via Stripe (Checkout Sessions),' specifying the currency, country, payment provider, and the type of link. It distinguishes from sibling 'create_subscription_link' by focusing on one-time payments.
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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_subscription_link' or 'refund_payment.' It provides implicit context (one-time vs. recurring) but lacks direct guidance on selection criteria.
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_nok | 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?
With openWorldHint=true, the description should disclose side effects beyond link creation. It mentions automatic charges and a guardrail (per-period amount check), but does not clarify that Stripe objects (e.g., subscription, customer) are created. Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, and description is consistent. More detail on side effects would improve transparency.
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 the core action and billing options. Second sentence explains process and guardrail. No redundant words; each sentence earns its place.
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 explains how the checkout link works and ownership checks, but lacks details on return value (e.g., the generated URL), expiration, or single-use behavior. Given no output schema and openWorldHint, more completeness is needed for full autonomous 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%, so schema documents all parameters. The description adds value by clarifying 'amount_nok' as per-billing period in major unit and mentioning billing types for 'interval'. However, the description largely repeats schema info for other params. Adds minor meaning 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 via Stripe, specifying billing periods (monthly/yearly/weekly). It distinguishes itself from siblings like create_payment_link (one-time) and cancel_subscription (different action) by focusing on recurring subscriptions.
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: for recurring subscriptions with automatic charges. It mentions ownership policy guardrails but does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternatives. The context is clear but lacks exclusions.
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 Norway 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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, describing a safe read operation. Description adds that it queries Stripe directly, is pull-based, and reveals extra output fields (invoice_url, invoice_pdf) with conditions. 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, no filler. First sentence states purpose and context, second adds conditions and additional results. 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?
Despite no output schema, description sufficiently explains return values: paid flag condition and optional invoice fields. Covers the core output needs for the user.
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% and the description reiterates the parameter's source (created by create_payment_link), adding useful context beyond the schema's basic type 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?
Description clearly states the tool checks if a Norway payment (created by create_payment_link) has been paid, with specific detail on the paid condition and optional invoice links. It distinguishes from sibling tools like cancel_subscription or 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?
Explicitly says when to use: to check payment status with a pull-based approach without webhooks. Lacks explicit exclusion of alternatives but context from sibling tools and the description's specificity provide good guidance.
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 active status mapping (ACTIVE or TRIALING) and the meaning of NOT_SUBSCRIBED_YET, which goes beyond the 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 convey necessary information with no fluff. Could be slightly more structured but is efficient for its length.
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 low complexity (1 required param, no output schema), the description sufficiently covers the tool's behavior including return value interpretation. No major 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?
Schema coverage is 100% and the schema already fully describes the id parameter with the same detail as the description. Thus the description adds no new parameter semantics.
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 a subscription created by create_subscription_link, with specific ID formats. It distinguishes from siblings like cancel_subscription and query_payment_status by tying it to subscription 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 clear context for when to use (to check a subscription after creation) and specifies accepted ID formats. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternative tools for similar tasks.
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?
Annotations already mark the tool as destructive and non-readonly. The description adds context about guardrails (x-agentpay-max-amount) and amount validation, but does not describe the effect on the payment record or whether the operation is reversible.
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 short, front-loaded sentences with no wasted words. The primary action and key constraints are presented efficiently.
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 core functionality and guardrails but omits any mention of return values or error handling. Given the absence of an output schema, this gap reduces completeness for an 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?
With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining default full-refund behavior and that partial refund requires support, clarifying the 'amount' parameter 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 refunds a paid payment and links it to create_payment_link, making the action identifiable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like query_payment_status, leaving inference to the agent.
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 usage for refunding payments originally created via create_payment_link and explains full vs partial refund. It lacks guidance on when not to use the tool or mention of alternative tools.
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!