Skip to main content
Glama

ifthenpay Payments MCP

by com.ifthenpay

pix_create_payment

Creates a PIX payment for Brazilian customers. Returns a payment URL and a QR code value. Customer must have a CPF number (Brazilian tax ID).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
amountYesPayment amount in BRL (e.g. 50.00).
pix_keyYesifthenpay PIX key.
order_idYesUnique order identifier in your system (max 25 characters).
descriptionNoShort description or reference for the payment (max 200 characters).
customer_cpfYesCustomer CPF number (Brazilian tax ID), digits only (e.g. 74026594025).
redirect_urlYesURL to redirect the customer after payment. Check payment status via the status API after redirect.
customer_cityNoCustomer city.
customer_nameYesFull name of the customer (max 150 characters).
customer_emailYesCustomer email address.
customer_phoneYesCustomer phone number including country code (e.g. +5585912345678).
customer_stateNoCustomer state (e.g. CE, SP).
customer_addressNoCustomer street address.
customer_zip_codeNoCustomer postal/ZIP code.

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It adequately states that the tool creates a payment and returns URL and QR code, and notes the CPF requirement. However, it does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether it charges the customer immediately), error conditions, or idempotency behavior, which are important for a payment tool.

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 (two sentences) and front-loaded with the primary action and outputs. The second sentence adds a critical requirement. While effective, it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating preconditions).

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?

Given 13 parameters (8 required) and no output schema, the description covers the key output (URL and QR code) and a critical precondition (CPF). It also implies the use case (Brazilian customers). However, it does not explain the redirect_url behavior or how to check payment status, though sibling tools like payments_list may cover that.

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 100%, so the schema already describes all parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond what is in the schema, except reinforcing the CPF requirement. Baseline is 3, and the description does not significantly exceed that.

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 the action ('Creates a PIX payment'), target resource ('for Brazilian customers'), and outputs ('Returns a payment URL and a QR code value'). It distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying the payment method and customer geography.

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?

The description explicitly states a precondition ('Customer must have a CPF number'), which helps the agent know when the tool is applicable. However, it does not provide guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives like creditcard_create_payment or mbway_request_payment, nor does it mention when not to use it.

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