Vietnam Payments (MoMo — wallet QR / ATM / cards)
Server Details
Vietnam payments for AI agents — MoMo wallet QR, ATM, cards. Zero-setup sandbox. 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 4.3/5 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 tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (create_payment_link, query_payment_status), making them predictable and easy to understand.
With only 2 tools, the set feels minimal for a payment system. While the core create-and-check workflow is covered, a typical integration would expect more operations (e.g., refund, cancel).
The tool surface lacks essential operations like refunds, cancellations, or transaction listing. Agents cannot handle post-payment lifecycle events, which is a significant gap.
Available Tools
2 toolscreate_payment_linkAInspect
Create a Vietnam payment link in VND. Aggregates two Vietnamese gateways: MoMo (default; the biggest e-wallet, zero-setup sandbox demo with no headers) and VNPay (bank cards/QR across most Vietnamese banks; send x-vnpay-tmn-code + x-vnpay-hash-secret headers and it is auto-selected, or set provider). Via MoMo, Vietnam's biggest e-wallet. Buyer pays with the MoMo wallet (QR), ATM card, or credit card on MoMo's hosted payment page — payment completes automatically, no confirm step. Amounts in VND dong (integer, e.g. 150000 = 150,000₫; min 1,000 / max 50,000,000). Zero-setup demo: with NO credential headers, requests run against MoMo's public sandbox (test money only, safe to try immediately). For real usage bring your own MoMo business credentials via headers x-momo-partner-code + x-momo-access-key + x-momo-secret-key (from business.momo.vn). Money always flows buyer→MoMo→merchant; this service never touches funds.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| amount | Yes | Amount in VND (integer, e.g. 150000 = 150,000₫). MoMo limits: 1,000–50,000,000. | |
| order_id | No | Your unique order reference (≤50 chars, letters/digits/-/_). Auto-generated if omitted. Needed to query status. | |
| provider | No | Which gateway to use. Omit to auto-select: VNPay when x-vnpay-* headers are present, otherwise MoMo. | |
| order_info | Yes | What this payment is for (shown to the buyer, ≤200 chars) | |
| redirect_url | No | Optional https URL MoMo redirects the buyer to after payment. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds significant behavioral details beyond annotations: payment completes automatically without a confirm step, money flow (buyer→gateway→merchant), amount limits, and demo vs real usage. No contradiction with annotations (readOnlyHint=false).
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 paragraph but well-structured with front-loaded purpose. Every sentence adds value, though it could be slightly more concise. It effectively uses the space.
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 omits what the tool returns (e.g., payment link URL). It also lacks details on error handling or rate limits. Annotations provide openWorldHint, but the description could better complete the behavioral context.
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 the description adds value for parameters: explains amount limits in VND, auto-generated order_id, provider auto-select logic, and redirect_url usage. 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 specifies the verb 'Create' and resource 'Vietnam payment link in VND', and distinguishes from the sibling tool 'query_payment_status' by focusing on creation. It also details the two gateways.
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 on when to use the tool (for Vietnam VND payments) and explains default gateway selection logic (MoMo vs VNPay based on headers). It lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives beyond the sibling, but the context is sufficient.
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 Vietnam payment (created by create_payment_link) has been paid. Queries MoMo directly — a reliable pull-based alternative to webhooks. paid=true when resultCode 0 (status PAID); 1000 = PENDING (buyer has not finished).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| order_id | Yes | The order_id returned by create_payment_link | |
| provider | No | Omit to auto-select by credential headers. | |
| transaction_date | No | VNPay only, usually NOT needed (auto-derived from order_id). Pass yyyyMMddHHmmss (GMT+7) only if you supplied a custom order_id at creation. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate read-only behavior. The description adds detail about querying MoMo directly, reliability, and exact result codes for PAID and PENDING, providing behavioral context beyond the 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 concise sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then providing key details. Every sentence serves a purpose without 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?
Despite no output schema, the description compensates by explaining return status meanings. It covers essential behavioral aspects, though an example response could enhance completeness.
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 explaining that paid=true corresponds to resultCode 0, and clarifies transaction_date usage for VNPay only, adding meaning beyond 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 checks payment status for Vietnam payments created by a specific tool. The verb 'Check' and resource 'payment status' are specific, and it distinguishes from the sibling 'create_payment_link' which creates 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 frames the tool as a pull-based alternative to webhooks, guiding when to use it. It provides status code meanings and notes auto-selection of provider, but could be more explicit about when not to use or alternative methods.
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!