Skip to main content
Glama

ifthenpay Payments MCP

by com.ifthenpay

pinpay_create_payment

Creates a Pay by Link / PINPAY payment. Returns a shareable payment URL and a PIN code. The hosted checkout supports multiple payment methods including Credit Card, Google Pay, and Apple Pay.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
otpNoOne-time payment: "true" makes the link expire after a single payment.
langNoLanguage for the payment page: pt, en, es, fr. Defaults to pt.
amountYesPayment amount in EUR (e.g. 10.50).
accountsNoPayment methods to show in the gateway, separated by semicolons. Format: METHOD|KEY (e.g. "MBWAY|MBWAY-KEY;MB|MB-KEY;PAYSHOP|PAYSHOP-KEY;CCARD|CCARD-KEY"). Leave blank to use gateway defaults.
order_idYesUnique order identifier in your system (max 15 characters).
error_urlNoURL to redirect the customer if the payment fails.
cancel_urlNoURL to redirect the customer if they cancel.
descriptionNoShort description shown on the payment page (max 200 characters).
expiry_dateNoLink expiry date in YYYYMMDD format (e.g. 20301231). Leave blank for no expiry.
gateway_keyYesifthenpay Gateway key for Pay by Link / PINPAY.
success_urlNoURL to redirect the customer after a successful payment.
btn_close_urlNoURL for the close/back button on the payment page.
btn_close_labelNoLabel text for the close/back button.
selected_methodNoPre-select a payment method: 1=Multibanco, 2=MB WAY, 3=Payshop, 4=Credit Card, 7=Cofidis Pay, 8=Pix.

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. While it correctly indicates the tool creates a payment (non-destructive), it lacks details on authorization requirements, idempotency, rate limits, or whether the payment creation could trigger side effects beyond generating a URL.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is concise at two sentences. It is front-loaded with the core action and key outputs. Slightly more structure could improve readability, but it remains clear and to the point.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given no output schema, the description minimally states what is returned (URL and PIN). However, it does not explain the response format or any additional fields that might be present. For a tool with 14 parameters, the description is somewhat sparse.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, so each parameter is already well-documented. The description adds value by summarizing the key outputs (URL and PIN), but does not provide additional insight beyond the schema for individual parameters.

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 clearly states it creates a Pay by Link / PINPAY payment, returns a shareable URL and PIN code, and lists supported payment methods. The name and description together make it distinct from sibling tools like cofidis_create_payment or pix_create_payment.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling payment creation tools. It does not mention contexts for choosing PINPAY over specific payment method tools.

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

All ifthenpay Payments MCP toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct payment method or action (e.g., cofidis_create_payment vs mbway_request_payment), and the two MB WAY tools are clearly complementary (request vs check status). No ambiguity between tools.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent `method_action` pattern in snake_case (e.g., creditcard_create_payment, mbway_check_status, payments_list). Actions like `create_payment`, `create_reference`, and `request_payment` are appropriate for their respective methods.

Tool Count5/5

9 tools is well-scoped for a payment gateway MCP server, covering multiple payment methods and a list endpoint. Each tool serves a clear purpose without redundancy.

Completeness4/5

Covers creation for all payment methods and includes a status check for MB WAY. However, dedicated status/retrieve tools for other payment methods are missing; they rely on the payments_list endpoint. Missing cancellation or refund tools, which are common in payment systems.

Resources