Skip to main content
Glama
Rishab87

ClawdPay MCP

by Rishab87
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Related Servers

Alternatives to ClawdPay MCP

No user-submitted related servers found.

    Related Servers

    • ClawPay

      valdo99
      A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      D
      maintenance
      Enables AI agents to make payments by securely storing encrypted card details and enforcing user-defined policies, allowing agents to fill checkout forms on any site.
      6 npm
      MIT

    • AgentCard MCP Server

      tiny-agent-company
      -
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      D
      maintenance
      Enables AI agents to manage and use prepaid virtual Visa cards with hard budget limits for secure online transactions. It provides tools for creating cards, checking balances, and retrieving payment credentials with human-in-the-loop approvals.
      1
      -

    • Clawallex MCP Server

      clawallex
      F
      license
      A
      quality
      D
      maintenance
      Enables AI agents to make payments and manage subscriptions by converting USDC stablecoin balances into virtual cards for online checkouts. It provides tools for wallet management, card issuance, and secure transaction handling through the Clawallex payment API.
      18
      50 npm
      -
    Deploy Server
    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

    TDQS

    B3.1/5.0

    Scored across 3 tools

    Disambiguation5/5

    Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: create_virtual_card handles card creation, get_funding_sources lists funding accounts, and secure_auto_fill focuses on browser automation for payment fields. There is no overlap in functionality, making tool selection straightforward for an agent.

    Naming Consistency4/5

    Two tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (create_virtual_card, get_funding_sources), while secure_auto_fill uses a different adjective_noun style. This minor deviation slightly reduces consistency, but the names remain readable and descriptive overall.

    Tool Count3/5

    With only 3 tools, the server feels thin for a payment integration domain, which typically involves more operations like updating cards, managing transactions, or handling errors. While the tools cover basic needs, the scope seems limited compared to what might be expected.

    Completeness2/5

    The toolset has significant gaps for a payment integration server. It lacks essential operations such as updating or deleting virtual cards, viewing transaction history, managing card limits, or handling errors. This incomplete surface will likely cause agent failures in common payment workflows.

    Maintenance

    ActivityInactive
    ResponsivenessNo issues

    Resources