Skip to main content
Glama

maginary-mcp

by io.github.maginaryai
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Create checkout link

checkout

Create a Stripe checkout session for purchasing a product.

Returns a ``checkout_url`` — the user must open it in a browser to
complete payment. After payment, credits are provisioned automatically
via webhook. **Present the URL exactly as returned, including the
``#fragment`` — do not truncate, reformat, or strip any part of it.**

If the agent has a USDC wallet, skip this entirely — just call
``generate`` and the x402 protocol handles payment on-chain.

Args:
    product_id: Product ID from ``get_products``.
    email: Account email (for Basic auth during onboarding).
    password: Account password (for Basic auth during onboarding).

Returns:
    Dict with ``checkout_url``. On failure, an ``isError`` result — e.g.
    ``error: "email_not_verified"`` until the user clicks the
    verification link, or ``"auth"`` / ``"failed"``.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
emailNoAccount email (for Basic auth during onboarding).
passwordNoAccount password (for Basic auth).
product_idYesProduct ID from get_products.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations by explaining the checkout flow: the URL must be opened in a browser, payment is handled via webhook, credits are provisioned automatically, and the URL fragment must not be modified. It also discloses failure modes such as email_not_verified, auth, and failed. This is rich behavioral context for a mutation 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 well-structured, front-loaded with the purpose, and uses formatting to highlight the critical URL-handling instruction. The Args block is somewhat redundant with the schema, but the overall length is justified by the important behavioral details and failure examples.

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?

The description is complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly. It covers purpose, usage conditions, alternative routing, exact handling of the returned URL, post-payment behavior, and failure responses. The presence of an output schema further reduces the burden on the description.

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 already provides 100% description coverage for all three parameters. The description's Args section essentially repeats the schema text, adding no new semantic meaning. It does reinforce that product_id comes from get_products, but that is already in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Create a Stripe checkout session for purchasing a product.' This distinguishes checkout from sibling tools like generate, create_account, or get_products. The title and description align well.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description gives explicit routing guidance: if the agent has a USDC wallet, skip checkout and call generate instead. It also points to get_products for the product_id, clarifying the intended data source. This is strong when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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

All maginary-mcp toolsInspect
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