delegare-agent-payments
Server Details
Delegare provides secure payments for AI agents.
Google AP2-powered payment authorization for AI agents. Issue scoped spending mandates with hard limits, merchant controls, and no exposure of card credentials or private keys.
Agents pay across dual rails: cards and ACH via Stripe, or USDC and USDT on Coinbase Base. Supports paid API access and x402-protected requests through MCP.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Tool Definition Quality
Average 3.8/5 across 6 of 6 tools scored.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: fetching with payment, balance check, merchant stats, payment execution, mandate polling, and authorization setup. No confusion possible.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with lowercase and underscores, e.g., execute_fetch, get_balance, pay_merchant.
6 tools cover the core actions of the agent payments domain without being overwhelming or insufficient.
Covers essential workflows: authorization, payment, balance, and merchant stats. Minor gap like transaction history not critical.
Available Tools
6 toolsexecute_fetchExecute FetchAInspect
Fetch a URL. If the resource requires payment via x402, provide your intentMandate and this tool will automatically authorize the payment and retrieve the data. Supports both GET and POST. Can also be used for standard public API fetches.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | The URL to fetch | |
| body | No | Optional JSON body for POST requests | |
| _meta | No | Internal metadata for transport | |
| method | No | HTTP method | GET |
| intentMandate | No | Optional: Your intent mandate (the SD-JWT-VC encoded token) to automatically pay for x402 protected resources. |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | The fetched URL |
| status | Yes | HTTP response status code |
| content | No | The response body (JSON or text) |
| receipt | No | Payment receipt if executed |
| paymentExecuted | Yes | Whether an x402 payment was executed |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), the description adds key behavior: automatic payment authorization via intentMandate and ability to handle both GET and POST. This provides useful transparency for agent decision-making.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Four concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. No redundant phrases. Every sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the output schema exists, the description covers the main fetch behavior and special payment handling. It lacks explicit error handling or prerequisites, but is largely complete for a fetch tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description explains the intentMandate parameter's role in automatic payment, adding marginal value over schema descriptions alone.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Fetch a URL' and explains the x402 payment authorization feature, supporting both GET and POST. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_balance or pay_merchant by covering generic URL fetching.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for fetching any URL and for x402-protected resources, but does not explicitly state when to use alternatives (e.g., pay_merchant for direct payments) or when not to use this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_balanceGet BalanceARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Check your remaining spending allowance and monthly limits.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| _meta | No | Internal metadata for transport | |
| intentMandate | Yes | The intent mandate to check balance for |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| status | No | Mandate status (e.g. active) |
| currency | No | Currency (e.g. usd) |
| maxPerTxCents | No | Max per-transaction limit |
| maxMonthlySpendCents | No | Maximum monthly limit |
| currentMonthlySpendCents | No | Amount spent this month |
| remainingMonthlySpendCents | No | Remaining budget this month |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and destructiveHint, so the description adds context about what is returned (allowance and limits). No contradiction, but the description does not add significant behavioral detail beyond the annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that front-loads the purpose. No unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simple read operation, the description is complete. Output schema exists, so return values are documented elsewhere.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so parameters are fully described in the schema. The description does not add any additional meaning or usage details for the intentMandate parameter.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The title and description clearly state the tool checks remaining spending allowance and monthly limits. It is distinct from sibling tools like execute_fetch and pay_merchant.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for balance checking but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusion criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_merchant_statsGet Merchant StatsARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Get performance statistics for your merchant account.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| _meta | No | Internal metadata for transport |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| period | No | Reporting period |
| totalVolumeCents | No | Total volume in cents |
| totalTransactions | No | Total number of transactions |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds 'performance statistics' but no new behavioral details (e.g., whether stats are cached, real-time, or require recent activity).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One sentence, front-loaded with the core action, no filler. Appropriate length for a simple tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the existence of an output schema (not shown) and the tool's simplicity (0 required params, read-only), the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks specificity about what statistics are returned (e.g., time range, metrics included).
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% but the only parameter is '_meta' described as 'Internal metadata for transport', leaving no user-facing parameters. The description does not clarify that no additional input is needed, so it adds no value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'performance statistics for your merchant account', distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'get_balance' or 'pay_merchant'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives (e.g., 'get_balance' for balance, 'execute_fetch' for raw data). The agent must infer context from names alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
pay_merchantPay MerchantAInspect
Execute a payment to a merchant, crypto wallet, or user handle using your spending delegate.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| _meta | No | Internal metadata for transport | |
| recipient | No | Optional: The merchant ID, Delegare handle (e.g. 'sunny-violet-panda'), or 0x crypto wallet address to send funds to. | |
| amountCents | Yes | Amount in cents (e.g., 100 = $1.00) | |
| description | Yes | Payment description or memo | |
| intentMandate | Yes | Your intent mandate (the SD-JWT-VC encoded token) | |
| idempotencyKey | Yes | Unique key for the payment to prevent duplicates (e.g., 'pay_merchant_100_001') |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| status | No | Payment status |
| network | No | Blockchain network if applicable |
| receiptId | No | Unique receipt ID |
| amountCents | No | Amount paid |
| transaction | No | On-chain transaction hash if applicable |
| txExplorerBaseUrl | No | Explorer URL base |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false. Description adds context about using a spending delegate and recipient types, but lacks disclosure of failure modes, irreversibility, or balance prerequisites.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, front-loaded with key action and targets. No wasted words; efficient and clear.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the rich schema and presence of output schema, description is mostly complete. It covers the core action and unique method (spending delegate), but could mention prerequisites or common failure scenarios.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. Description does not add meaning beyond the schema; it references recipient types but does not explain intentMandate or idempotencyKey usage beyond what schema already provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the tool executes a payment to a merchant, crypto wallet, or user handle using a spending delegate. This is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools which are read-only or authorization-related.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., request_payment_authorization). Usage context is only implied by the tool name and sibling list, not explicitly stated in the description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
poll_setup_sessionPoll Setup SessionARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Polls the status of a pending spending mandate setup. Call this after generating a setup URL to get the final intentMandate.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| _meta | No | Internal metadata for transport | |
| sessionToken | Yes | The sessionToken returned by request_payment_authorization |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| status | Yes | Current status: pending, complete, or expired |
| intentMandate | No | The finalized intent mandate if complete |
| encodedMandate | No | Legacy encoded mandate field |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is clear. Description adds the return of 'intentMandate' but doesn't disclose polling behavior, potential errors, or that it may need repeated calls.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence with an immediate instruction, no filler. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With output schema existing, description covers purpose and when to use. Could mention polling until ready, but annotations (idempotent) mitigate the gap. Adequate for a simple poll tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 100% coverage for parameters, both described adequately. Description does not add new meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the verb 'polls', the resource 'pending spending mandate setup', and the outcome 'get the final intentMandate'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'request_payment_authorization' by specifying it's for polling after setup.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly says 'Call this after generating a setup URL', providing clear context for when to use. Does not explicitly state alternatives or when not to use, but the context implies it's only for this polling scenario.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
request_payment_authorizationRequest Payment AuthorizationAInspect
Set up agent spending limits. Request permission from the user to spend money on their behalf. Use this BEFORE making a payment to generate an Intent Mandate token.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| _meta | No | Internal metadata for transport | |
| maxPerTxCents | Yes | Requested maximum amount in cents allowed per single transaction | |
| maxMonthlySpendCents | Yes | Requested maximum total amount in cents allowed per month |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| setupUrl | No | URL for the user to complete payment authorization |
| shortcut | No | Whether an existing mandate was used |
| sessionToken | No | Token to poll for completion |
| intentMandate | No | Encoded intent mandate if shortcut available |
| maxPerTxCents | No | Confirmed max per transaction |
| maxMonthlySpendCents | No | Confirmed max monthly spend |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate the tool is not read-only and not destructive. The description adds that it involves 'request permission from the user' and generates a token, which is useful behavioral context beyond the annotations. However, it does not elaborate on side effects or error conditions, so the transparency is adequate but not exceptional.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with three sentences, each adding value. The first sentence broadly states the action, while the second and third clarify the purpose and usage context. No redundant information is present, though the first sentence could be more specific.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that the tool has an output schema (not shown) and clear parameter descriptions, the description adequately covers the tool's role in the payment workflow. It explains the necessity of calling it before payments and the token generation, which suffices for most use cases.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage for parameters (maxPerTxCents and maxMonthlySpendCents), and the _meta field is described as internal. The tool description does not provide additional parameter-level details beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description explicitly states the tool's purpose: 'Set up agent spending limits' and 'Request permission from the user to spend money on their behalf.' It differentiates from sibling tools like pay_merchant by specifying 'Use this BEFORE making a payment to generate an Intent Mandate token,' making its role clear.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear sequential guidance: 'Use this BEFORE making a payment to generate an Intent Mandate token.' This implies when to use the tool (as a prerequisite for payments) and hints at the usage context, though it does not explicitly state 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.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!