Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Z-ZERO MCP

Z-ZERO MCP

by Dempty-glitch
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

execute_payment

Executes a payment with a one-time token: fills card fields, clicks Pay, verifies confirmation. Reports confirmed, declined, or unconfirmed status to guide next steps.

Instructions

Execute a payment with a one-time token: Z-Zero opens a headless browser, injects the card (you NEVER see the PAN), clicks Pay, then watches for a REAL confirmation before reporting success. Returns a status: confirmed (order placed → token burned, receipt_id may hold a real order #), declined (merchant rejected → token kept for refund), unconfirmed (submitted but no confirmation seen → do NOT retry blindly, verify first), not_submitted (no Pay button → supply a submit_selector hint), or no_fields. ALWAYS pass actual_amount so overcharges are blocked and underspend refunded.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "token": "<token>",
      "checkout_url": "<checkout_url>"
    },
    "name": "execute_payment"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
hintsNoOptional hints from get_merchant_hints — selectors and pre-steps to guide Playwright. Use when default selectors fail or for complex multi-step checkouts.
tokenYesThe temporary payment token from request_payment_token
checkout_urlYesThe full URL of the checkout/payment page
actual_amountNoSTRONGLY RECOMMENDED. The final total shown on the checkout page (incl. shipping + tax). Enables the overcharge block and the underspend refund — omit only if it is genuinely unreadable.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.7.0

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility and excels: it reveals that the PAN is never seen, that it waits for real confirmation, defines each status outcome and token lifecycle (burned on confirmed, kept for declined), and describes the overcharge/underspend protection. This is a model of transparency.

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?

The description is dense but every sentence adds useful information about behavior, statuses, or safety thresholds. It front-loads the purpose and uses compact listing of statuses, achieving a high information-to-word ratio.

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?

Without an output schema or annotations, the description compensates by fully enumerating return statuses and their implications for token handling. It also covers both happy path and failure modes (declined, unconfirmed, not_submitted, no_fields) and provides guidance on the actual_amount parameter, making it sufficiently complete for a complex payment execution tool.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The schema already describes all 4 parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining why actual_amount is strongly recommended (overcharge block, underspend refund) and tying the submit_selector hint to the 'not_submitted' status, which enriches parameter semantics.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly identifies the action ('Execute a payment') and the resource ('a one-time token'), and adds specific behavioral detail (headless browser, card injection, confirmation watch). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool auto_pay_checkout, so it falls short of the highest score for sibling distinction.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description provides strong usage context: it instructs to ALWAYS pass actual_amount for overcharge/refund protection, warns against blind retries on 'unconfirmed', and suggests supplying a submit_selector hint when 'not_submitted'. It does not name alternative tools or explicitly state when not to use this tool, so a score of 4.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools