Peru Payments (Mercado Pago — Yape / PagoEfectivo)
Server Details
Peru payments for AI agents — Yape / PagoEfectivo via Mercado Pago. 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 4.2/5 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 in functionality, making selection unambiguous.
Both tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern: 'create_payment_link' and 'query_payment_status'. The naming is predictable and clear.
With only 2 tools, the server is minimal but covers the core flow of creating and checking payments. However, for a payment domain, this feels thin, and additional tools for refunds or cancellations would be expected.
The tool set is missing essential payment operations like refunds, cancellations, or support for multiple payment methods beyond a single link. While the basic flow works, agents cannot handle common post-payment scenarios.
Available Tools
3 toolscreate_payment_linkAInspect
Create a payment link in PEN for Peru via Mercado Pago. Buyer pays with Yape, PagoEfectivo cash, cards, Mercado Pago wallet. Returns a hosted checkout URL the buyer opens to pay — payment completes automatically, no confirm step. Bring your own credentials via HTTP header (x-mercadopago-access-token; free test credentials from mercadopago.com developers never move real money). Money always flows buyer→Mercado Pago→merchant; this service never touches funds.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| amount_pen | Yes | Amount in PEN (decimals allowed), e.g. 10. Minimum 1. | |
| 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?
Annotations indicate readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false. The description adds that payment completes automatically without a confirm step, explains the money flow, and mentions credential requirements. 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?
The description is concise with three sentences. It front-loads the core purpose and follows with details. No unnecessary information, though it could be slightly more 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?
Given no output schema, the description explains the return value (hosted checkout URL). It covers payment flow, credentials, and use case. It is complete for a payment link creation tool, though it could mention error handling or rate limits.
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 baseline is 3. The description adds minimal extra context for parameters (e.g., decimals allowed for amount, shown to buyer for description). It mentions the HTTP header for credentials, which is not a parameter. Overall, limited additional 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 payment link in PEN for Peru via Mercado Pago, specifies payment methods, and mentions the returned checkout URL. It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'query_payment_status' which deals with status queries.
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 (to create a payment link) and provides context about bringing own credentials via HTTP header and the money flow. It doesn't explicitly list alternatives or when not to use, but the context is clear and the sibling tool is different.
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 Peru payment (created by create_payment_link) has been paid. Queries Mercado Pago directly — pull-based, no webhook needed. paid=true when status is PAID (Mercado Pago APPROVED).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| external_reference | Yes | The external_reference returned by create_payment_link |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations, the description adds that it queries Mercado Pago directly, defines the mapping of paid=true to Mercado Pago APPROVED status, and confirms pull-based behavior, providing rich behavioral context.
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 three concise sentences that front-load the purpose, then explain the method and output mapping, with zero 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?
While the description explains the paid field boolean mapping, it lacks details on full response structure, error handling, or states other than PAID, which is incomplete for a tool with 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?
The schema already describes the single parameter with 100% coverage, and the tool description does not add additional meaning beyond restating that it is the reference from create_payment_link, so baseline score 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 the tool checks whether a Peru payment created by create_payment_link has been paid, with a specific verb and resource that distinguish it from the sibling tool create_payment_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?
The description explicitly states this is for checking payments created by create_payment_link and that it's pull-based with no webhook needed, providing clear context for when to use it, though it doesn't explicitly list when not to use.
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. | |
| external_reference | Yes | The external_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 indicate destructive hint (true) and readOnly false. The description adds context about default full refund, partial refund support, and guardrail checks on amount. This provides behavioral detail beyond annotations without 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?
The description is three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then default behavior, then guardrails. Every sentence is clear and purposeful with 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 simple tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, and behavior well. However, it omits information about the return value (e.g., refund confirmation) and error conditions, leaving minor gaps 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?
Schema coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for both parameters. The description reinforces this by explaining 'pass amount for a partial refund' and adds that amount is in 'local currency major unit', providing extra semantic value 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 'Refund a paid payment (created by create_payment_link).' It specifies the verb (refund), resource (paid payment), and context (created by specific tool). This distinguishes it from siblings create_payment_link and 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?
The description implies when to use (refund payments created by create_payment_link) and notes partial refund behavior and policy guardrails. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives, though siblings make the use case clear.
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!