AurasPay Merchant MCP

auraspay_payment_create

Idempotent

Create a shareable payment link after human approval on AurasPay. First call returns approvalUrl, not a payment link. Call again with the identical requestId and payment details after approval to retrieve publicUrl. Existing merchant webhooks may be notified when created. No funds are transferred.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`payment`	Yes
`requestId`	Yes	Stable UUID for this intended link. Reuse this UUID AND identical payment details to retrieve status; never change it automatically after an uncertain response.

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.

Changed4 schema fields changedSep 15, 2026

addedOutput schema / properties / error

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Stable, non-sensitive AurasPay error code.",
+  "minLength": 1,
+  "type": "string"
+}

addedOutput schema / properties / error_description

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Safe human-readable explanation of the error.",
+  "minLength": 1,
+  "type": "string"
+}

addedOutput schema / properties / httpStatus

Added value: +{
+  "maximum": 9007199254740991,
+  "minimum": -9007199254740991,
+  "type": "integer"
+}

removedOutput schema / required

Removed value: -[
-  "requestId",
-  "status"
-]

First observedSep 15, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

The description significantly expands on the annotations by disclosing that the first response is not a payment link, that the operation is idempotent only when requestId and payment details are identical, that merchant webhooks may be notified, and that no funds are transferred. This is consistent with idempotentHint=true and 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.

Conciseness5/5

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

Four short sentences, each carrying essential information: creation intent, first-call result, second-call requirement, and side-effect caveat. The most important action is front-loaded in the first sentence.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a two-step, approval-gated creation tool, the description covers the full workflow, the idempotent retry condition, webhook side effects, and the financial no-op nature. An output schema exists for return values, so the description need not describe the response structure.

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?

The description mentions reusing the identical requestId and payment details, but this rule is already present in the requestId schema description. It does not explain the required payment subfields such as label, currency, network, or amount beyond their names and types. With roughly 50% schema description coverage, the description only partially compensates for the missing field-level guidance.

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?

Description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Create a shareable payment link after human approval on AurasPay.' It also names the unusual two-step behavior (approvalUrl first, publicUrl second), which distinguishes this creation flow from sibling read tools like auraspay_payment_get and auraspay_payment_qr.

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?

It gives clear procedural direction: call once to get approvalUrl, then call again with the identical requestId and payment details after approval. This effectively states when the second call is appropriate. It does not explicitly compare against sibling tools or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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.

Resources

Need Help?