Uruguay Payments (Mercado Pago — Mercado Pago wallet)
Server Details
Uruguay payments for AI agents — Mercado Pago wallet via Mercado Pago. 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 3 of 3 tools scored.
Each tool serves a distinct purpose: creating a payment link, querying payment status, and refunding a payment. There is no overlap or ambiguity between them.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (create_payment_link, query_payment_status, refund_payment) using snake_case and clear, descriptive verbs.
With 3 tools covering creation, status check, and refund, the count is well-scoped for a focused payment gateway integration. No unnecessary tools.
The set covers the main lifecycle (create, check, refund) but lacks a cancel/void operation for unpaid payment links. This is a minor gap but does not severely hinder the core workflow.
Available Tools
3 toolscreate_payment_linkAInspect
Create a payment link in UYU for Uruguay via Mercado Pago. Buyer pays with cards, Abitab / Redpagos cash, 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_uyu | Yes | Amount in UYU (decimals allowed), e.g. 500. Minimum 50. | |
| 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 already indicate a non-read-only, non-destructive operation. The description adds value by explaining the no-confirm-step behavior, money flow (buyer→Mercado Pago→merchant), and credential requirements, covering important behavioral traits 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 concise (4 sentences), front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds necessary information without redundancy.
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 payment tool with 5 parameters, the description covers the purpose, usage, return value, credentials, and payment flow. Although output schema is absent, the description sufficiently explains the returned checkout URL. Siblings are not directly compared but are distinct enough.
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 all 5 parameters. The description adds contextual meaning about credential headers and payment flow, enhancing understanding beyond the schema alone.
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 UYU for Uruguay via Mercado Pago, specifying the currency, country, payment methods, and the returned hosted checkout URL. It is distinct from sibling tools that query or refund 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?
Provides clear context on when to use the tool, including payment methods and automatic completion. Implicitly distinguishes from siblings by its purpose, but does not explicitly state 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.
query_payment_statusARead-onlyInspect
Check whether a Uruguay 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?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. Description adds that it queries Mercado Pago directly (pull-based) and specifies the condition for paid=true (Mercado Pago APPROVED), which goes 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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no unnecessary words. Efficiently conveys all key 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 simple one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, data source, and result condition. No gaps given tool complexity.
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 external_reference as returned by create_payment_link. Description repeats this, adding no new meaning beyond what the schema provides. 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 verb 'Check' and the resource 'Uruguay payment status', and distinguishes itself from sibling tools (create_payment_link and refund_payment) by specifying it is 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?
Provides context for when to use: after creating a payment link, to check if paid. Mentions pull-based vs webhook, but does not explicitly state when not to use or compare with alternatives.
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 already show destructiveHint=true. The description adds context by explaining that refunds respect x-agentpay-max-amount guardrails and that the amount is checked before the gateway. 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 two sentences with no fluff. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second adds essential details about partial refunds and guardrails. Front-loaded and efficient.
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 covers the purpose and key behaviors, but since there is no output schema, it lacks information about the return value (e.g., success indication, refund ID). Also missing error cases like non-existent or already-refunded payments.
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%. The description adds value by specifying that amount is optional, in local currency major unit, and that external_reference matches the id from query_payment_status. This goes beyond the schema's parameter 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 that this tool refunds a paid payment created by create_payment_link, distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_payment_link (creates) and query_payment_status (queries). It specifies full and partial refunds.
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 indicates that the tool is for refunding paid payments from create_payment_link and mentions that refunds respect owner policy guardrails. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives for other payment types.
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!