AurasPay Merchant MCP

auraspay_wallet_ownership_challenge

Idempotent

Create a short-lived EVM or Solana ownership message after native review. The connected wallet must sign it; AurasPay never receives a private key. 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

A4.1/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond annotations: AurasPay never receives a private key, the message is short-lived, an approval URL is returned first, and no change occurs until separate human approval. It also reinforces idempotency by instructing reuse of the same requestId and details.

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 concise sentences, each adding distinct value: purpose, security guarantee, approval flow, and idempotent retrieval. No redundancy and the key action 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 overall flow, prerequisites, async nature, and result retrieval without needing to explain return values thanks to the output schema. It could be improved by explicitly referencing the verify sibling, but it is largely complete for a multi-step wallet challenge.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the meaning of requestId, namespace, chainId, or address. It only says to reuse the identical requestId and details, which is not enough to help an agent construct correct parameter values.

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 identifies a specific action: 'Create a short-lived EVM or Solana ownership message.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like auraspay_wallet_ownership_verify and establishes what resource is being acted upon.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

It gives useful context: 'after native review', the wallet must sign, and no change occurs until human approval. However, it never mentions when to use this tool versus auraspay_wallet_ownership_verify or other wallet-related tools, and provides no explicit exclusions.

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.