Pakistan Payments (Safepay — Safepay checkout)
Server Details
Pakistan payments for AI agents — Safepay checkout via Safepay. 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. No overlap or ambiguity.
Both tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (create_payment_link, query_payment_status), making them predictable and easy to understand.
With only two tools, the set is perfectly scoped for a simple payment link creation and status query workflow. No unnecessary tools.
The tools cover the core flow of creating a payment and checking its status. While missing potential features like cancellation or refund, the set is complete for the basic checkout scenario.
Available Tools
2 toolscreate_payment_linkAInspect
Create a payment link in PKR for Pakistan via Safepay. Buyer pays with cards and local payment methods on the Safepay hosted checkout. Returns a hosted checkout URL the buyer opens to pay — payment completes automatically, no confirm step. Bring your own credentials via HTTP header (x-safepay-public-key; free test credentials from getsafepay.com never move real money). Money always flows buyer→Safepay→merchant; this service never touches funds.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| amount_pkr | Yes | Amount in PKR (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?
Description adds context beyond annotations: 'payment completes automatically, no confirm step' and 'money always flows buyer->Safepay->merchant'. 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 dense but efficient, containing purpose, behavior, credentials, and money flow in two sentences. Could be slightly better structured for readability.
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?
Comprehensive coverage of parameters and payment flow. Lacks explicit response structure but mentions returned URL, partially compensating for no output schema.
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 value like 'shown to the buyer' for description and 'Auto-generated if omitted' for reference_id.
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 PKR for Pakistan via Safepay', specifying currency, region, and processor. It distinguishes from the sibling tool '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?
Explains buyer payment methods, automatic completion, and required credentials. However, no explicit when-to-use or 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.
query_payment_statusARead-onlyInspect
Check whether a Pakistan payment (created by create_payment_link) has been paid. Queries Safepay directly — pull-based, no webhook needed. paid=true when status is PAID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tracker | Yes | The tracker token 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, so the description's mention of 'pull-based, no webhook needed' adds value beyond the annotation. It also discloses that 'paid=true when status is PAID', which informs behavior. 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 sentences that are front-loaded with the purpose. No unnecessary words; each sentence adds value.
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 one-parameter read-only tool, the description explains what it checks, how it works, and what return value to expect. No output schema needed; the description covers the key behavioral aspect.
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 restates the schema's parameter description ('The tracker token returned by create_payment_link') without adding new semantics. 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?
The description clearly states the verb 'check', the resource 'payment status', and specifies 'Pakistan payment (created by create_payment_link)'. It distinguishes from the sibling create_payment_link by being a query 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?
The description explains when to use the tool ('after creating a payment link'), and mentions it is pull-based with no webhook needed, providing clear context. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the context is 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!