Saudi Arabia Payments (Tap Payments — mada / STC Pay)
Server Details
Saudi Arabia payments for AI agents — mada / STC Pay via Tap Payments. 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 4.5/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.
The two tools have entirely distinct purposes: one creates a payment link, the other queries payment status. No overlap or ambiguity in their use.
Both tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern: create_payment_link and query_payment_status, making the naming predictable and clear.
With only two tools, the server is lean but covers the essential create-and-query flow for payments. While a few more tools (e.g., cancel or refund) could be expected, the count is still reasonable for a focused integration.
The server covers the core workflow of creating a payment link and checking its status. However, it lacks tools for other common payment operations like refunds or canceling payments, which are notable gaps.
Available Tools
2 toolscreate_payment_linkAInspect
Create a payment link in SAR for Saudi Arabia via Tap Payments. Buyer pays with mada (the Saudi debit network), Apple Pay, cards, STC 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_sar | Yes | Amount in SAR (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?
Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, etc. The description goes beyond by detailing the payment flow: automatic completion, no confirm step, money flow (buyer→Tap→merchant), and that the service never touches funds. This adds significant 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 a single dense paragraph covering all key aspects without wasted words. It is front-loaded with the main purpose. Slightly more structured formatting could improve readability, but it remains concise and informative.
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, the description explicitly states the return value (hosted checkout URL). It covers the payment process, credential requirements, and money flow. All 5 parameters are addressed. The description is complete for an AI agent to use the tool 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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying that the description parameter is shown to the buyer, customer email is required by Tap Payments for receipt, and reference_id is auto-generated. It also explains the amount range and decimal usage. This additional context justifies a 4.
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 'Create', the resource 'payment link', and specifies the context: SAR currency, Saudi Arabia, Tap Payments, and supported payment methods (mada, Apple Pay, etc.). It effectively distinguishes from the sibling tool 'query_payment_status' by focusing on creation.
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 (to create a payment link), mentions the required credential (x-tap-secret-key header), and clarifies that test credentials do not move real money. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the context is sufficient for an AI agent.
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 Saudi Arabia 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?
Discloses that it queries Tap Payments directly, is pull-based, and the condition for payment success. Consistent with readOnlyHint annotation. Adds 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?
Three concise sentences, front-loaded with purpose, 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?
No output schema, so description should cover return structure more fully. It states paid=true condition but does not describe other possible fields or error responses. For a simple tool, adequate but not complete.
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 already describes charge_id well. Description only reiterates the payment link context, adding no new parameter details. Baseline 3.
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 it checks payment status for Saudi Arabia payments, distinguishing from sibling create_payment_link which creates links. Specifies pull-based behavior and condition for paid=true.
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?
Tells when to use: after creating payment link, as a pull-based check. Implicitly contrasts with webhooks. Could be more explicit about alternatives but provides clear context.
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!