United Kingdom Payments (Stripe — Stripe checkout)
Server Details
United Kingdom payments for AI agents — Stripe checkout via Stripe. 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 6 of 6 tools scored.
Each tool targets a distinct operation: creating payment or subscription links, querying their status, canceling subscriptions, and refunding payments. No two tools overlap in purpose.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., create_payment_link, cancel_subscription), making them predictable and easy to understand.
Six tools is an appropriate number for a payment/subscription management server. It covers core operations without being overwhelming or insufficient.
The tool set covers creation, querying, cancellation, and refund for both payments and subscriptions. Missing a subscription update tool, but the domain is well-covered overall.
Available Tools
6 toolscancel_subscriptionADestructiveIdempotentInspect
Cancel a subscription. By default the subscription stays active until the end of the current paid period (fair to the buyer); pass immediate=true to cancel right now.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | session_id (cs_...) or subscription_id (sub_...) | |
| immediate | No | true = cancel immediately. Default false = cancel at period end. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds valuable context: default keeps subscription active until period end, immediate=true cancels now. This goes 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action, and efficiently explains both default and immediate behavior. 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?
Given no output schema, description covers behavior and parameters well. It could mention post-cancellation effects (e.g., refunds or pro-ration) but is still sufficient for a cancellation tool with annotations that hint at idempotency.
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 meaning: clarifies 'id' accepts session_id (cs_...) or subscription_id (sub_...), and explains 'immediate' boolean purpose. This supplements the schema effectively.
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 'Cancel a subscription,' specifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes between default behavior (end of paid period) and immediate cancellation, differentiating it from sibling tools like create or query.
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 immediate=true (cancel right now) vs default (fair to buyer, cancel at period end). While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use the tool, the context is clear. No direct comparison to siblings but sufficient for a cancellation tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
create_payment_linkAInspect
Create a payment link in GBP for the United Kingdom via Stripe (Checkout Sessions). Buyer pays with cards, Apple Pay / Google Pay, and other methods enabled on the Stripe 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-stripe-secret-key; free test credentials from dashboard.stripe.com never move real money). Money always flows buyer→Stripe→merchant; this service never touches funds. Optional: issue_invoice=true auto-creates a VAT-ready invoice (PDF + hosted page, emailed to the buyer) after payment; collect_tax_id=true collects the buyer's business tax ID (e.g. EU VAT number) at checkout and puts it on the invoice.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| amount_gbp | Yes | Amount in GBP (decimals allowed), e.g. 3.0. Minimum 0.3. | |
| 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. | |
| issue_invoice | No | true = Stripe automatically creates and emails a post-payment invoice (PDF + hosted invoice page). Ideal for B2B / VAT bookkeeping. Note: Stripe charges a small Invoicing fee per invoice issued. | |
| collect_tax_id | No | true = ask the buyer for their business tax ID (e.g. EU VAT number) on the checkout page; it appears on the invoice. Combine with issue_invoice for a VAT-compliant receipt. | |
| customer_email | No | Optional buyer email. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false (mutation) and openWorldHint=true (side effects). The description adds context: the tool returns a checkout URL, payment completes automatically, and the service never touches funds. 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 relatively long but front-loaded with the main purpose. It logically covers payment methods, returned URL, credentials, money flow, and optional features. Each sentence adds information, though slight trimming could improve conciseness.
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 complexity (6 parameters, no output schema), the description covers purpose, behavior, authentication, optional parameters, and return value (hosted checkout URL). It is comprehensive for a payment link creation 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%, baseline 3. The description adds value by explaining the purpose and ideal use cases for optional parameters like issue_invoice and collect_tax_id (e.g., B2B, VAT compliance), going 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 the tool creates a payment link in GBP for the United Kingdom via Stripe Checkout Sessions. It specifies the currency, region, payment methods, and flow. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_subscription_link, which handles recurring payments.
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 the payment flow and optional features but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies one-time payments, but guidance on when not to use it (e.g., for subscriptions) is absent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
create_subscription_linkAInspect
Create a recurring subscription checkout link (monthly/yearly/weekly billing) via Stripe. The buyer opens the URL, enters their card once, and is then charged automatically every period until canceled. Amount is per billing period in the local currency major unit. Respects the same owner policy guardrails as payments (the per-period amount is checked before anything is created).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| interval | No | Billing period. Default "month". | |
| amount_gbp | Yes | Amount charged per billing period (local currency major unit) | |
| description | Yes | What the subscription is for (shown to the buyer, <=200 chars) | |
| success_url | No | Optional https URL to send the buyer to after subscribing. | |
| customer_email | No | Optional buyer email (pre-filled at checkout; receipt goes there). |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses the creation of a checkout link, the buyer's flow, and automatic billing until canceled. It also mentions an amount check before creation. Annotations (readOnlyHint=false) are consistent. Minor omission: no mention of rate limits or auth, but sufficient for typical use.
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 concise sentences, each serving a purpose: purpose, flow, amount explanation, policy note. No fluff. Front-loaded with the core action.
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?
The description lacks details on the return value (the link URL) and does not address what happens if the link expires or is unused. Given no output schema, this is a notable gap, but the input schema and process are well-covered.
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 3. The description adds minor details like 'local currency major unit' (echoing schema) and '<=200 chars' for description, but does not significantly expand on parameter meaning 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 it creates a recurring subscription checkout link via Stripe, with specific billing periods (monthly, yearly, weekly). It differentiates from sibling tool 'create_payment_link' (one-time payment) by emphasizing 'recurring'.
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 the checkout flow and mentions policy guardrails, giving context on when to use. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives, though sibling tools imply the distinction.
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 the United Kingdom payment (created by create_payment_link) has been paid. Queries Stripe directly — pull-based, no webhook needed. paid=true when status is PAID. If the payment was created with issue_invoice=true, the result also includes invoice_url and invoice_pdf once paid.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| session_id | Yes | The session_id returned by create_payment_link |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses pull-based behavior, direct Stripe query, and explains return fields (paid status, invoice details). Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, and description adds useful context 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?
Three concise sentences with no fluff. Key information is front-loaded, 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?
Though no output schema, description explains key return fields (paid, invoice_url, invoice_pdf) under specific conditions. Lacks exhaustive details but sufficient for a simple status check 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 already describes the single parameter (session_id) fully. Description adds context that it is returned by create_payment_link, providing slight additional value.
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?
Description explicitly states the tool checks UK payment status, created by create_payment_link, and queries Stripe directly. It clearly identifies the resource and action, distinguishing it from siblings like refund_payment or 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?
Provides context on when to use (pull-based, no webhook needed) and explains key conditions (paid=true, invoice fields). However, it does not explicitly contrast with siblings or state when not to use this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
query_subscriptionARead-onlyInspect
Check a subscription created by create_subscription_link. Accepts the session_id (cs_...) or subscription_id (sub_...). active=true when the subscription is ACTIVE or TRIALING; NOT_SUBSCRIBED_YET means the buyer has not completed checkout.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | session_id (cs_...) returned by create_subscription_link, or subscription_id (sub_...) |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation: explains accepted identifier formats, the meanings of active=true and NOT_SUBSCRIBED_YET, and the subscription lifecycle. This helps the agent understand the response without contradicting 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, no fluff. Front-loaded with the tool's purpose, followed by essential details. Every 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 no output schema, the description explains key response fields (active, NOT_SUBSCRIBED_YET) and lifecycle states. While it could mention potential errors or other fields, it covers the most important aspects for a query 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 the baseline is 3. The description repeats and slightly expands the schema's parameter description (e.g., 'returned by create_subscription_link'), providing minor additional context but not substantial new meaning.
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 it checks a subscription created by create_subscription_link. Specifies accepted identifier formats (session_id or subscription_id) and distinguishes from sibling tools like cancel_subscription. The verb 'check' and resource 'subscription' 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 tells when to use: to check a subscription status. It implies usage for subscriptions created via create_subscription_link. While not explicitly stating when not to use or comparing to alternatives, the sibling tools provide enough context to avoid misuse.
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. | |
| session_id | Yes | The session_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?
Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, which the description confirms by stating it is a refund operation. It adds context about default full refund, optional partial amount, and gateway amount checks, providing 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?
The description is two sentences long, front-loads the core purpose, and adds crucial details without extraneous information. Every sentence contributes valuable context.
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?
With no output schema and two well-described parameters, the description covers purpose, parameters, and guardrails adequately. It could briefly mention the outcome of a refund, but the context is largely 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% with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds meaning by explaining that amount is optional for partial refund and linking session_id to query_payment_status, which aids understanding.
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' and distinguishes from sibling tools (create_payment_link creates, query_payment_status queries). It specifies the resource (paid payment) and action (refund), making it fully distinct.
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 (for refunding paid payments) and how to choose between full and partial refunds. It also mentions guardrails but does not explicitly state when not to use it, such as for unpaid payments or non-supported gateways.
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!