The P-Link MCP Server enables AI assistants and automation tools to manage Solana-based payments and financial transactions through a standardized protocol interface.
Wallet Management: Create wallets associated with email addresses, log in with OTP authentication, retrieve wallet information (balance, Solana address, token details), access transaction history for any Solana wallet, securely retrieve private keys via p-link.io, and check transaction status using Solana transaction IDs.
Payment Processing: Send money to email addresses, phone numbers, or Solana wallet addresses with automatic account creation for recipients and auto-return of unclaimed funds after 3 days.
Payment Link Creation: Generate HTTP 402-compliant payment links for receiving payments via credit card or any Solana token (auto-converted to USDC). Customize with logos, titles, descriptions, webhooks, notification emails, custom parameters, and redirect URLs for successful/failed payments. Supports USD and EUR currencies.
Fund Management: Add funds to wallets using credit cards (via Stripe) or by sending Solana cryptocurrency directly to wallet addresses.
HTTP 402 Protocol Integration: Pay for and automatically access 402-protected resources using wallet funds, enabling AI agents to make autonomous purchases.
Cross-Platform Integration: Works with ChatGPT, Claude, n8n, Flowise, LangChain, and other MCP-compatible clients via HTTP or STDIO interfaces.
System Health: Ping endpoint for server health checks to ensure operational status.
Integrates fetch-402 client from Coinbase for HTTP 402 payment protocol support, enabling AI agents to pay for resources protected by payment links.
Enables payment hook integration with Framer through customizable payment link webhooks that can be connected to Framer automation workflows.
Supports payment hook integration for automation workflows through payment link webhooks that can trigger IFTTT automations on successful payments.
Provides tools for managing Solana wallet operations including sending money to wallets/emails/phone numbers, creating payment links with automatic token conversion to USDC, viewing balances and transaction history, and processing HTTP 402 protected payments.
Click on "Install Server".
Wait a few minutes for the server to deploy. Once ready, it will show a "Started" state.
In the chat, type @ followed by the MCP server name and your instructions, e.g., "@P-Link-MCP send $5 to s.smith@mail.com"
That's it! The server will respond to your query, and you can continue using it as needed.
Here is a step-by-step guide with screenshots.
P-Link MCP Server is a server compliant with the MCP (Model Context Protocol), integrating fetch-402 client from coinbase, and HTTP 402 protocol on server side, allowing ChatGPT, Claude, and other MCP-compatible clients to connect to a payment system on Solana.
It provides a simple interface to:
Pay 402 links
Create 402 payment links (supporting agent payment on Solana and human payment by card, Solana wallet, or P-Link account)
Send money to any email or phone number
View transaction history
View wallet information (balance, public wallet address)
🟢 Live Server: https://mcp.p-link.io/mcp
Connect your Solana wallet to ChatGPT, Claude, or n8n — and manage your purchases simply by talking.
This project exposes the p-link.io API as Model Context Protocol (MCP) tools, available over HTTP (Streamable) and/or STDIO.
send_money: Send an amount of money to a wallet, an email, or a phone number. Can be any email or phone number. If the user has no P-Link account, an account is created for him and the access is emailed or sent by phone. If the user already has a P-Link account, the wallet is reused. If the account is not claimed within 3 days, the funds are returned to the sender.
request_payment_link : Create a payment link in order to be paid the desired amount, you can also provide a webhook that will be called on payment success, or a notification email address, or customize the payment page using the parameters. The payment link obtained complies to the HTTP 402 specification, which means AI can pay for the ressource protected by this link. Payment can be made using any Solana token, and get converted to USDC during the transaction. Humans can pay by card. Payment hook can be easily connected to automation tools (IFTTT, Framer, etc).
get_wallet_info : Get information about your wallet (balance, public address, etc)
get_wallet_history : Retrieve list of the transactions related to my Solana wallet
pay_and_get_402_protected_url : Pay a HTTP 402 protected URL, and returns the protected result. The assistant will use your wallet in order to pay for the requested ressource.
get_wallet_and_otp : Create wallet for this email and get otp
login_with_otp : Login using otp
fund_my_wallet : Get the different ways in order to fund your wallet : Sending Solana cryptocurrency to the specified Solana public wallet address, or use a the provided link in order to fund your account using a credit card (provided by Stripe).
get_private_key_of_wallet : Get the private key of your wallet. First call this tool with no otp and the server will send you an OPT to provide to this tool.
Related MCP server: remit.md MCP Server
💬 "Hi ! What is the balance of my wallet ?"
💬 "Can you buy the shoes i like at : https://p-link.io/@phh/0.01?PRODUCT=My_Favorite_shoes&id=888"
💬 "Send 0.2$ to @Paracetamol"
💬 "Send 0.2$ to s.smith@mail.com"
💬 "Can you check the status of this transaction ?"
💬 "Create a payment link of 10 euros"
💬 "Show me my transaction history"
💬 "Pay for this P-Link my friend sent me : https://p-link.io/@Paracetamol/0.1"
There are no prerequisities, using the MCP server, you can call the tool get_wallet_and_otp in order to create a wallet associated with your email address, and login with it. Then if you want to send funds, you can use the tool fund_my_wallet that will give you the instructions to fund your wallet using a Solana wallet or a credit card.
If you already have a P-Link account, you can specify the API_KEY parameter, if you want to create your account with your assistant, just leave this parameter. In the software, you can get your APIKEY in API, Send money page : https://p-link.io/ApiDoc/Send
Edit the file claude_desktop_config.json in your Claude Desktop configuration directory:
Windows
%APPDATA%\Claude\claude_desktop_config.jsonMac OS
~/Library/Application Support/Claude/claude_desktop_config.jsonProvide the following content after replacing your SHOPID and APIKEY.
{
"mcpServers": {
"plink": {
"command": "npx",
"args": [
"plink-mcp-server",
"--apikey=[replaceWithYourAPIKEY]"
]
}
}
}Requires a workspace account
In Settings → Connectors → Create Connector, fill in the following:
Variable | Value |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Once added, the connector will be available in new conversations.
Create an installation folder and run the following command in your shell:
npx plink-mcp-server --apikey=abcdef123456# Dependencies
git clone https://github.com/paracetamol951/P-Link-MCP.git
# Dependencies
npm install
# Environment variables (see below)
# Build
npm run build🐳 Run the MCP server in HTTP mode with Docker:
docker compose upVariable | Default | Description |
|
| Required: your API key |
Create a .env file:
APIKEY=XXXXXXXXXXXXXXChatGPT (OpenAI) — via external MCP configuration
Claude (Anthropic) — via "Tools manifest URL"
n8n / Flowise / LangChain — import via public URL
You are welcome to complete !
The MCP API exposes a JSON manifest describing all available tools for compatible clients (ChatGPT, Claude, n8n, etc.) : https://mcp.p-link.io/.well-known/mcp/manifest.json
© 2025. GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE
Fund wallet : Obtain a link in order to fund your wallet of the desired amount using a credit card, or the Solana address of your wallet if you want to fund your account using Solana.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| amount | No | Amount to fund in your wallet in USD |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations include readOnlyHint=true, indicating this is a read operation. The description adds context by explaining that it 'obtains a link' or provides a 'Solana address', which clarifies the tool's behavior beyond just reading data. However, it doesn't detail rate limits, authentication needs, or what the link/address is used for, leaving some behavioral aspects unclear.
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 sentence that repeats the title verbatim, which is redundant and not front-loaded with unique value. While it's concise, it wastes space by not adding new information beyond the title, reducing its effectiveness.
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 tool's complexity (funding operations), lack of output schema, and minimal annotations, the description is somewhat incomplete. It covers the purpose and methods but doesn't explain return values, error conditions, or integration details. With no output schema, more context on what to expect would be beneficial.
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 1 parameter with 100% description coverage, clearly documenting 'amount' as 'Amount to fund in your wallet in USD'. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, such as format details or constraints. With high schema coverage, 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?
Tautological: description restates name/title.
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 when funding a wallet via credit card or Solana, but doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'request_payment_link' or 'send_money'. It mentions two methods but doesn't specify prerequisites or exclusions, leaving the context somewhat vague.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get the private key of your wallet on secured app https://p-link.io
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| solanaWalletAddress | No | Solana wallet address |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true, suggesting a safe read operation, which aligns with the description's 'get' action. However, the description adds minimal context beyond this—it doesn't disclose security implications (e.g., private keys are sensitive), rate limits, or what the output entails (e.g., plaintext key, encrypted data). With annotations covering basic safety, it earns a baseline score but lacks depth.
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 sentence that repeats the name/title, making it under-specified rather than concise. It wastes space on redundant information (e.g., the URL) without adding useful context. A more effective description would front-load critical details like security warnings or usage context.
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?
For a tool handling sensitive private keys with no output schema and minimal annotations, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain return values (e.g., key format, encryption), error conditions, or security risks. Given the high-stakes nature of private key access, more completeness is needed to guide safe usage.
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, with the parameter 'solanaWalletAddress' clearly documented. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details (e.g., why this address is needed, format constraints beyond the schema). Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, but no extra value is provided.
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?
Tautological: description restates name/title.
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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., authentication, wallet setup), use cases (e.g., backup, recovery), or exclusions (e.g., not for public wallets). Given siblings like 'get_wallet_info', the description fails to clarify why one would choose this tool over others.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Retrieve the state and details of a transaction using Solana trx ID
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| trxID | No | The transaction ID |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations include readOnlyHint=true, indicating this is a safe read operation. The description adds no behavioral traits beyond this, such as rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'state and details' entail (e.g., confirmation status, metadata). However, it does not contradict annotations, so it meets the lower bar with annotations present but adds minimal context.
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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action. However, it lacks structure (e.g., no separation of purpose from usage) and is overly brief, missing opportunities to add value without verbosity. It earns a 4 for zero waste but loses points for under-specification in a tool-rich context.
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 one parameter with full schema coverage and readOnlyHint annotation, the description is minimally adequate. However, with no output schema and siblings like 'get_wallet_history', it should clarify return values (e.g., transaction status, timestamps) and differentiate from other tools. It meets basic needs but leaves gaps in a complex server environment.
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 description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'trxID' documented as 'The transaction ID'. The description adds no meaning beyond this, such as format examples (e.g., base58 string) or validation rules. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't need to heavily.
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?
Tautological: description restates name/title.
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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given siblings like 'get_wallet_history' (which might list transactions) and 'send_money' (which might create transactions), the description offers no context about use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. It merely states what the tool does without addressing when it's appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Create a wallet for your email or get otp by email
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| Yes | Email that will be associated with the wallet. This email can claim the funds on the wallet. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, indicating this is a safe read operation. The description adds minimal behavioral context by suggesting two possible outcomes (create wallet or get OTP), but doesn't explain conditions triggering each outcome, whether this is idempotent, or what happens if a wallet already exists. It doesn't contradict annotations, but adds only basic value beyond them.
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?
While technically concise with a single sentence, the description is under-specified rather than efficiently structured. It repeats the title verbatim without adding explanatory value, failing to front-load critical information about the tool's dual functionality or usage context. The brevity comes at the cost of clarity.
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?
For a tool with ambiguous dual functionality (create wallet OR get OTP), no output schema, and multiple sibling tools, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the relationship between the two operations, expected return values, error conditions, or how this integrates with the broader wallet system. The annotations provide basic safety information but don't compensate for the description's lack of completeness.
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 description coverage is 100%, with the email parameter fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's already in the schema (e.g., no clarification on email format requirements or how it's used differently for wallet creation versus OTP retrieval). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the full parameter documentation burden.
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?
Tautological: description restates name/title.
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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites, when to choose this over 'fund_my_wallet' or 'login_with_otp', or whether this is for initial setup versus ongoing authentication. The agent receives no usage context beyond the ambiguous dual-purpose statement.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Transaction history : Retrieve list of the transactions related to the specified Solana wallet address (received and sent funds with dates)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| walletAddress | No | The Solana address of the wallet you want to see, if not provided, uses the currently connected user wallet address. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, indicating this is a safe read operation. The description adds useful context about what's retrieved ('received and sent funds with dates'), but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like pagination, rate limits, or authentication requirements beyond what's implied by the parameter description. No contradiction with annotations exists.
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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose. However, it repeats the title verbatim without adding extra value, slightly reducing its effectiveness, but it remains appropriately sized with no wasted 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 tool's moderate complexity (retrieving transaction history), lack of output schema, and rich annotations (readOnlyHint), the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers what the tool does but doesn't address return format, error handling, or prerequisites, leaving gaps for the agent to infer.
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 description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'walletAddress' fully documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, such as format requirements or examples, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
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?
Tautological: description restates name/title.
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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'get_transaction_state' (which might retrieve a single transaction) or 'get_wallet_info' (which might provide wallet metadata rather than transaction history), leaving the agent with no explicit usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Retrieve the wallet infos about the connected P-Link account (Solana wallet address, wallet balance, tokens detail)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pubk | No | The Solana address of the wallet you want to see, if not provided, uses the currently connected user wallet address. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description does not disclose behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide. Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true, implying a safe read operation, which the description aligns with by using 'retrieve'. However, it adds no additional context such as rate limits, authentication needs, or data freshness, relying solely on annotations for behavioral insight.
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 sentence that repeats the title verbatim, adding no new information. This is inefficient and under-specified, failing to earn its place with meaningful content, though it is not overly verbose.
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 tool has annotations (readOnlyHint) and a well-documented input schema but no output schema, the description is minimally complete. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on return values, error handling, or integration with sibling tools, making it adequate but with clear gaps for an agent to understand full context.
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 description adds no meaning beyond the input schema, which has 100% coverage for the single parameter 'pubk'. The schema already describes it as an optional Solana address defaulting to the connected wallet. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description does not compensate with extra parameter details.
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?
Tautological: description restates name/title.
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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not clarify if this is for general wallet info versus more specific tools like 'get_wallet_history' for transaction history or 'get_private_key_of_wallet' for sensitive data, leaving the agent without explicit usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Login using otp. Connect to your P-Link wallet using the one time password you received by email
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| Yes | Email of your account. | ||
| otp | Yes | otp in order to access your account. You can receive your one time password by email usgin this MCP server tools or get it on https://p-link.io |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true, suggesting a safe operation, but the description doesn't add behavioral context beyond this. It doesn't disclose what happens upon login (e.g., session creation, token return, error handling) or any rate limits. With annotations covering safety, the description adds minimal value, earning a baseline score for not contradicting them.
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 repetitive, echoing the title without adding value, making it inefficient. It consists of two redundant sentences that don't earn their place. While brief, it's under-specified rather than concise, failing to front-load useful information.
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?
For an authentication tool with no output schema and minimal annotations, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what happens after login (e.g., returns a session token, grants access to other tools) or error conditions. Given the complexity of authentication and lack of output details, more completeness is needed.
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 description coverage is 100%, with clear documentation for both parameters (email and otp). The description doesn't add any meaningful semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format details or usage tips. Given high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.
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?
Tautological: description restates name/title.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. While it mentions receiving OTP via email, it doesn't clarify prerequisites (e.g., must have an account, OTP must be valid) or contrast with other authentication methods. The context is implied but lacks explicit when/when-not instructions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Pay a HTTP 402 protected URL using your P-Link managed account, and returns the result
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | The 402 protected URL (can be any link complying to the x402 protocol) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, which already inform the agent that this is a mutating operation with potentially open-ended outcomes. The description adds context by specifying the payment mechanism ('P-Link managed account') and that it 'returns the result,' but doesn't elaborate on what the result includes (e.g., success/failure, transaction details) or behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling. No contradiction with annotations exists.
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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action: 'Pay a HTTP 402 protected URL using your P-Link managed account, and returns the result.' It has zero waste, directly mirroring the title and name without redundancy, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.
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 tool's complexity (a payment operation with destructive and open-world hints), the description is minimally complete. It clarifies the purpose and mechanism but lacks details on output (no output schema provided), error cases, or integration with sibling tools. While annotations cover safety aspects, the description could better address the agent's need to understand what 'returns the result' entails in practice.
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, with the 'url' parameter documented as 'The 402 protected URL (can be any link complying to the x402 protocol).' The description doesn't add any meaning beyond this, such as examples or constraints on URL format. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't need to.
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?
Tautological: description restates name/title.
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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., having a funded wallet), exclusions (e.g., non-402 URLs), or comparisons to siblings like 'request_payment_link' (which might create payment links) or 'send_money' (which might handle direct transfers). Usage is implied only by the tool's name and purpose.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Simple MCP server health check. Returns { result: 'OK' } if the server is alive.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| msg | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return value ({ result: 'OK' }) and the condition for that return ('if the server is alive'), which are useful behavioral traits. However, it lacks details on error handling, latency, or other operational aspects that might be relevant for a health check tool.
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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence and adds return details in the second. Both sentences earn their place by providing essential information without redundancy, making it appropriately sized and efficient 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 tool's low complexity (1 optional parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is reasonably complete. It explains what the tool does and what it returns, which covers the basics. However, it could be more complete by addressing the optional parameter or potential error cases, but this is a minor gap for such a straightforward 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?
The input schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, and the description does not mention the 'msg' parameter at all. Since there are 0 required parameters, the baseline is 4, as the tool can be used without parameters. The description's focus on the return value compensates somewhat for the lack of param info, but does not fully address the undocumented 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 description clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('health check') and resource ('MCP server'), and it distinguishes from siblings by focusing on server status rather than wallet/transaction operations. It explicitly mentions what it returns, making the purpose unambiguous.
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 context ('if the server is alive') for checking server health, but does not explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives or provide exclusions. Given the simple nature of this tool and its clear purpose, the implied guidance is sufficient for most cases, though not exhaustive.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Create a payment link in order to request a payment to your account. This payment link can be used to pay you. Payment can be made using a credit card, or any Solana token (automatically converted to USDC)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| receivingPayment | No | Email, phone or Solana wallet of the recipient of the payment | |
| amount | Yes | Amount to request | |
| currency | No | Currency of specified amount to request | USD |
| title | No | A title for the payment shown to the payer | |
| description | No | A description, shown in the payment page | |
| returnOKURL | No | Optional : URL to redirect the client to after successfull payment | |
| returnURL | No | Optional : URL to redirect the client to after failed payment | |
| logo | No | Optional : URL to an image displayed in payment page | |
| param | No | Custom parameter | |
| webhook | No | HTTP webhook to call on payment success | |
| notificationEmail | No | Email to notify on payment success |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, indicating no state change, but the description claims 'create' which implies a write operation—this is a contradiction. However, the description adds value by specifying payment methods (credit card/Solana tokens with auto-conversion to USDC), which isn't covered by annotations. It lacks details on link lifespan, security, or rate limits.
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, repetitive sentence that restates the title verbatim without adding new information or structuring details. It wastes space by not front-loading key insights or expanding on usage, making it inefficient despite its brevity.
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?
For a tool with 11 parameters, no output schema, and annotations that only cover read-only status, the description is inadequate. It fails to explain return values (e.g., link format), error conditions, or behavioral nuances like webhook triggers, leaving significant gaps for agent invocation.
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 description coverage is 100%, so parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain 'receivingPayment' formats or 'param' usage). Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema carries the burden, but no extra semantic context is provided.
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?
Tautological: description restates name/title.
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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'send_money' (for active payments) or 'fund_my_wallet' (for direct funding). It mentions payment methods (credit card/Solana) but doesn't specify use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the purpose alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Send money to an email, Solana wallet or phone number. The provided email or phone can be used to claim the money of the wallet. If new user does not claim for 3 days, the money is returned to the sender.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to | Yes | One or multiple recipients | |
| amount | Yes | Amount to send | |
| currency | No | Currency of specified amount to send | USD |
| title | No | A title for the transaction shown to the receiver |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations provide destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, indicating a write operation with potential side effects. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it explains the claim mechanism for new users, the 3-day timeout, and automatic return of funds if unclaimed. This clarifies the tool's operational behavior without contradicting 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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action and follows with critical behavioral details. Every part earns its place: the main purpose, recipient options, claim mechanism, and timeout policy are all essential without redundancy.
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?
For a destructive tool with no output schema, the description provides good context: it covers the action, recipient types, claim process, and timeout behavior. However, it doesn't mention error conditions, authentication requirements, or what happens after sending (e.g., confirmation details), leaving some gaps in operational completeness.
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?
With 100% schema description coverage, the input schema already documents all parameters thoroughly (to, amount, currency, title). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond what's in the schema, such as format examples or usage nuances. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.
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?
Tautological: description restates name/title.
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 implicitly provides usage context by specifying recipient types (email, Solana wallet, phone) and mentioning a 3-day claim period, which helps determine when to use it. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like 'pay_and_get_402_protected_url' or 'request_payment_link', and doesn't mention prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Most tools have distinct purposes, such as funding, transaction retrieval, wallet management, and payments. However, get_wallet_and_otp combines wallet creation and OTP retrieval, which could cause confusion with login_with_otp, leading to minor ambiguity in their overlapping OTP-related functions.
The naming is mixed with some consistency in verb_noun patterns like get_transaction_state and get_wallet_history, but deviations exist such as fund_my_wallet (verb_pronoun_noun), pay_and_get_402_protected_url (complex compound), and ping (single word). This creates a readable but inconsistent convention overall.
With 11 tools, the count is well-scoped for a P-Link wallet and payment management server. Each tool serves a clear function in handling wallets, transactions, payments, and server health, making the set comprehensive without being overwhelming.
The tool set covers key operations like wallet creation, funding, transaction history, payments, and authentication, supporting core workflows. A minor gap is the lack of tools for updating wallet details or managing tokens beyond basic retrieval, but agents can work around this with the existing tools.
Unclaimed servers have limited discoverability.
If you are the server author, to access and configure the admin panel.
Complete financial infrastructure for AI agents — payments, lending, escrow & more.
Stripe payments for AI agents. Create links, verify, manage customers.
Payment infrastructure for AI agents: spending rules, approval flows, single-use virtual cards.
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/paracetamol951/P-Link-MCP'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server
