Qatar Payments (Tap Payments — cards / Apple Pay)
Server Details
Qatar payments for AI agents — cards / Apple Pay via Tap Payments. 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 4.4/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.
Each tool serves a distinct purpose: creating a payment link, querying its status, and processing refunds. No overlap in functionality.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (create_payment_link, query_payment_status, refund_payment), making them predictable.
Three tools is minimal but appropriate for the core operations of a payment link service (create, check, refund). Slightly under, but each tool earns its place.
The set covers the main lifecycle of a payment link: creation, status checking, and refunding. A potential gap is the ability to cancel/void an unpaid link, but this is a minor omission.
Available Tools
3 toolscreate_payment_linkAInspect
Create a payment link in QAR for Qatar via Tap Payments. Buyer pays with cards, Apple Pay, Google Pay — whatever is enabled on the Tap 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-tap-secret-key; free test credentials from businesses.tap.company never move real money). Money always flows buyer→Tap Payments→merchant; this service never touches funds.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| amount_qar | Yes | Amount in QAR (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 | Yes | Buyer email (required by Tap Payments; the receipt goes there). |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses key behaviors: returns a hosted checkout URL, no confirm step, credential requirements, and fund flow. Annotations are consistent (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) and description adds value beyond them.
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 informative but slightly verbose (e.g., 'whatever is enabled on the Tap account'). It is front-loaded with the main purpose and each sentence adds value, but could be tightened.
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?
Context is complete: input parameters fully documented, output (hosted URL) explained, credential and fund flow described. No output schema exists, so the description adequately covers what the agent needs.
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 descriptions cover 100% of parameters with good detail. The description adds minor context (e.g., why customer_email is required) but the schema already provides enough meaning, so 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 tool creates a payment link in QAR for Qatar via Tap Payments, and distinguishes it from siblings like query_payment_status and refund_payment. The verb 'create' and resource 'payment link' are specific.
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 where credentials come from (HTTP header), that payment completes automatically, and the fund flow. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings but sibling names make the context clear.
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 Qatar payment (created by create_payment_link) has been paid. Queries Tap Payments directly — pull-based, no webhook needed. paid=true when status is PAID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| charge_id | Yes | The charge_id (chg_...) returned by create_payment_link |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds value by explaining it queries Tap Payments directly and is pull-based. It also defines paid=true condition (status PAID). 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 fluff, front-loaded with the core action. Every word 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?
No output schema, but description explains the paid=true outcome. Covers the payment system and method. Could include more detail on possible statuses, but sufficient for basic usage.
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% for charge_id. Description adds context that charge_id comes from create_payment_link, enhancing meaning beyond the schema 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?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: checking Qatar payment status. It specifies the resource (payment status), action (query), and context (Tap Payments, pull-based). It also distinguishes itself from siblings (create_payment_link, refund_payment) by being a read-only status check.
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 (after creating a payment link) and notes that it is pull-based with no webhook needed. It does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives, but the context is clear.
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. | |
| charge_id | Yes | The charge_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?
Beyond annotations (destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false), the description clarifies that full refund is default, partial refund is optional but not always supported, and that the amount is checked against policy limits. This adds valuable context not in 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?
Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose. Each sentence adds value: scope, default behavior, partial refund option, and policy constraints. No redundant or irrelevant 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 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, and key constraints. It mentions 'where supported' for partial refunds, which acknowledges variability. Could add a note on idempotency or error handling, but overall sufficient.
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 for both parameters. The description adds meaning by explaining the default behavior (full refund) and the optional nature of the amount parameter for partial refunds. This goes beyond the 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?
The description clearly states 'Refund a paid payment' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (create_payment_link, query_payment_status) by specifying the scope (paid payments) and referencing the creation 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 implies when to use (only payments from create_payment_link) and mentions policy guardrails. It does not explicitly state when not to use, but the context and sibling tools provide enough implicit guidance.
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!