Turkey Payments (iyzico — Turkish cards / taksit)
Server Details
Turkey payments for AI agents — Turkish cards / taksit via iyzico. 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 4.6/5 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 or ambiguity.
Both tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (create_payment_link, query_payment_status), making them predictable and easy to understand.
With only 2 tools, the count is on the low side but reasonable for a focused payment link service. However, it feels slightly thin compared to typical payment server scopes.
The tools cover the basic create-and-check flow but lack operations like cancel or refund, which are notable gaps for a payment system. The set is functional but not comprehensive.
Available Tools
3 toolscreate_payment_linkAInspect
Create a payment link in TRY for Turkey via iyzico (Checkout Form). Buyer pays with local Turkish cards with taksit (installments), international cards. Returns a hosted checkout URL the buyer opens to pay — payment completes automatically, no confirm step. Bring your own credentials via HTTP header (x-iyzico-api-key; free test credentials from sandbox-merchant.iyzipay.com never move real money). Money always flows buyer→iyzico→merchant; this service never touches funds.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| amount_try | Yes | Amount in TRY (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?
The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond annotations: it explains the payment flow (hosted checkout URL, automatic completion), money flow (buyer→iyzico→merchant), credential requirements (x-iyzico-api-key header), and limitations (test credentials never move real money). No contradiction 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 well-structured and informative, but slightly verbose. Each sentence adds value, though some could be merged for brevity. It front-loads the core purpose and follows with details.
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 fully explains return value ('hosted checkout URL') and the payment lifecycle. It covers credentials, payment methods, and flow, making it complete for a complex payment tool.
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 each parameter is already described. The description adds value by explaining the purpose of amount_try (TRY), description (shown to buyer), and clarifying that reference_id is auto-generated. This augments the schema information.
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 uses specific verbs ('Create a payment link') and resources ('in TRY for Turkey via iyzico (Checkout Form)'), and clearly distinguishes from the sibling 'query_payment_status' by focusing on creation versus 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: buyer pays with Turkish cards, payment completes automatically, no confirm step, and explains credential requirements. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare 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 Turkey payment (created by create_payment_link) has been paid. Queries iyzico directly — pull-based, no webhook needed. paid=true when status is PAID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| token | Yes | The checkout form token returned by create_payment_link |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, so the description adds value by specifying the external service (iyzico) and the condition for paid=true, matching expectations for a pull-based check.
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 with no redundant information; the purpose is front-loaded and 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?
Given the tool has one parameter, no output schema, and annotations, the description provides complete context: what it does, how it works, and how to interpret the result (paid=true when status is PAID).
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 input schema has 100% coverage for the single parameter 'token', and the description adds context by stating it's the token returned by create_payment_link, enhancing understanding 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 checks if a Turkey payment has been paid, specifies it queries iyzico directly, and distinguishes it from the sibling tool create_payment_link by mentioning its role in creating payment links.
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 that this is a pull-based check and explicitly says no webhook is needed, providing clear context for when to use the tool, though it does not mention when not to use it.
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 Turkey payment (created by create_payment_link) via iyzico. Provide payment_id (the iyzico paymentId from query_payment_status) OR conversation_id (the reference_id you used when creating the link) — the tool looks up the payment to find its transaction(s), then refunds per-transaction. Full refund by default; pass amount_try for a partial refund (single-item payments, decimals allowed). Refunds respect the same owner policy guardrails (x-agentpay-max-amount) as payments — the refund amount is checked before anything is sent to iyzico.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ip | No | Optional IP address to record on the refund request. | |
| amount_try | No | Optional partial-refund amount in TRY (decimals allowed). Omit for a full refund of the payment. | |
| payment_id | No | iyzico paymentId of the paid payment (from query_payment_status.payment_id). Provide this or conversation_id. | |
| conversation_id | No | The reference_id you used in create_payment_link (iyzico conversationId). Provide this or payment_id. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true. Description adds rich behavioral details: it looks up payment, refunds per-transaction, checks refund amount against policy, and handles full/partial refunds. No 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?
Four sentences covering all key information without redundancy. Front-loaded with the core action, then elaborates on parameters and constraints 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?
For a destructive tool with 4 params and no output schema, description covers inputs, process, and policy constraints. Minor gap: does not describe the refund result or response format, but overall adequate.
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 has 100% coverage, baseline 3. Description adds meaning by explaining the origin of payment_id and conversation_id, the use of amount_try for partial refund, and the optional IP. Adds 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?
Clearly states it refunds a paid Turkey payment via iyzico, specifying the payment type (created by create_payment_link) and provider. Distinct 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?
Explains when to use (for refunding paid payments) and how to identify the payment via payment_id or conversation_id. Describes full vs partial refund and mentions owner policy guardrails. Does not explicitly exclude other tools, but context given siblings 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!