AurasPay Merchant MCP

auraspay_api_key_create

Idempotent

Prepare a named merchant API key for separate native human review. Its full value is shown only once on AurasPay, never returned to the AI. Existing integrations are unchanged. Losing the one-time page requires explicit revocation and a new deliberate request. Returns an AurasPay approval URL first. No change occurs until separate human approval. Reuse the identical requestId and details to retrieve the result.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`details`	Yes
`requestId`	Yes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`data`	No	Saved tool-specific result after the workflow reaches a result-bearing state.
`error`	No	Stable, non-sensitive AurasPay error code.
`status`	No	Authoritative workflow status; an approval URL alone is never completion.
`nextStep`	No	Safe follow-up guidance, including reconciliation requirements.
`expiresAt`	No	Approval expiry as Unix time in milliseconds.
`operation`	No	AurasPay operation name for general merchant actions.
`requestId`	No	Stable logical request UUID. Reuse it with identical details when checking status.
`httpStatus`	No
`approvalUrl`	No	AurasPay human-review URL. Opening it does not itself approve or complete the action.
`notification`	No	Notification-attempt metadata; provider acceptance is not inbox delivery.
`mayHaveSucceeded`	No	True only when reconciliation is required before any retry.
`error_description`	No	Safe human-readable explanation of the error.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedSep 15, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description adds critical behavior beyond annotations: the key value is shown only once, never returned to the AI; existing integrations are unchanged; losing the one-time page requires revocation and re-request; and no change occurs until human approval. These are essential for an agent to set expectations. It also aligns with idempotentHint by explaining reuse of requestId.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Four sentences with no fluff. The first sentence states the purpose, the following sentences add essential behavioral details. Each sentence earns its place, and the critical info about one-time visibility and approval is front-loaded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description covers the core flow: creation request, approval URL, one-time key, and retrieval via same requestId. It has an output schema, so it doesn't need to detail return values, but it does mention the URL. It lacks error handling or cancellation details, but for a tool with this complexity it's fairly complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'named merchant API key' which implies the name field in details, and 'Reuse the identical requestId and details' gives purpose to requestId for retrieval. However, it doesn't explain the format or constraints (UUID, maxLength) or that details only contains name. It provides some meaning but not comprehensive.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states the tool prepares a named merchant API key for separate human review, specifying the verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes from revocation and listing tools by focusing on creation with an approval flow. The detail about returning an approval URL further clarifies its function.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives clear context: this tool is for creating API keys that require separate human approval, and it's asynchronous. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it. The context is sufficient for an agent to infer when to invoke it, but not as explicit as it could be.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All AurasPay Merchant MCP tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.