Skip to main content
Glama
santosh-chourasiya

Paytm MCP Server

by santosh-chourasiya
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
Python
Remote

Server Quality Checklist

67%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v0.1.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    Each tool has a distinct purpose: creating a payment link, fetching all payment links, and fetching transactions for a specific link. There is no overlap or ambiguity.

    Naming Consistency4/5

    All names start with verbs (create, fetch) and use underscores, but the structure varies: singular vs plural and preposition 'for' in fetch_transactions_for_link. Mostly consistent but not perfectly uniform.

    Tool Count3/5

    With only 3 tools, the server feels thin for a payment gateway, but it is scoped to payment link management. This is borderline; more tools would improve coverage.

    Completeness3/5

    Covers create and read operations for payment links and transactions, but misses essential update/delete functionalities for payment links, leaving gaps in the lifecycle.

  • Average 4.2/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.

    See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
    • No stable releases found
    • No critical vulnerability alerts
    • No high-severity vulnerability alerts
    • No code scanning findings
    • CI status not available

  • This repository is licensed under MIT License.

  • This repository includes a README.md file.

  • No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.

    Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.

  • Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.

  • If you are the author, simply .

    If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:

    {
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}

    Then . Browse examples.

  • Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

  • Behavior4/5

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

    No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that both successful and failed transactions are included, and the return format includes an error message. It does not mention authentication or rate limits, but for a simple read operation, this is adequate.

    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 with separate Parameters and Returns sections. It is not overly verbose, but the bullet list could be condensed. Front-loaded with the primary action.

    Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

    Completeness4/5

    Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

    Given a simple tool with 1 parameter and no output schema, the description covers the return fields and error case. It does not mention pagination or ordering, but for a small transaction list, this is acceptable. Sibling tools are listed but not cross-referenced.

    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?

    With 0% schema coverage, the description must add meaning. It explains link_id as 'Unique identifier of the payment link', which adds a bit beyond the schema's type and title, but does not provide sourcing or format guidance.

    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 the verb 'Retrieve' and resource 'transactions associated with a specific payment link'. It distinguishes from siblings: create_payment_link creates links, fetch_payment_links retrieves links, while this tool retrieves transactions for a given link.

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

    Usage Guidelines3/5

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

    The description implies usage when needing transaction history for a payment link but does not explicitly state when to use vs alternatives. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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

  • Behavior4/5

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

    The description discloses that the tool returns both active and expired links, lists the fields in each link entry, and specifies the return type (list or error). With no annotations, it carries the burden well, though it could mention that it's a read-only operation explicitly.

    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 concise and well-structured: a clear opening sentence, bullet points listing return fields, and a return type specification. No unnecessary words.

    Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

    Completeness4/5

    Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

    For a tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the return content comprehensively, including fields and error case. It could mention pagination, but 'all payment links' implies complete list. Adequate for the tool's simplicity.

    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 input schema has zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The description provides no parameter info, but none is needed. Baseline score of 4 is appropriate.

    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 the tool retrieves all payment links created by the merchant, including both active and expired. It distinguishes from siblings: create_payment_link creates links, fetch_transactions_for_link fetches transactions for a specific link.

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

    Usage Guidelines3/5

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

    The description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies use for listing all links, but lacks explicit guidance or exclusions. Sibling tool names provide context, but the description should clarify.

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

  • Behavior4/5

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

    No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It mentions link expiry, optional amount, and conditional requirement of email/mobile. It does not detail error handling or idempotency, but for a creation tool it provides adequate transparency.

    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 with an intro, required/optional lists, and notes. The front-loaded sentence clearly states purpose. Repetition in 'IMPORTANT NOTE' reduces conciseness slightly.

    Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

    Completeness3/5

    Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

    The description covers parameter semantics well but does not explain the return value or output structure. Given no output schema, this omission makes the tool less complete for the agent to understand what to expect.

    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?

    Schema coverage is 0%, so the description compensates by listing all parameters with usage details. It adds meaning beyond schema by specifying conditional requirements and optionality. However, there is a slight inconsistency: description says amount is float but schema defines it as string.

    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 the verb 'Create' and the resource 'payment link for receiving payments'. It distinguishes from sibling tools 'fetch_payment_links' and 'fetch_transactions_for_link' which are retrieval operations.

    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 explicitly instructs the agent to ask for all required fields from the user before calling the tool, and provides conditional requirements for customer_email or customer_mobile. It also notes not to call the tool before obtaining these fields.

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

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

  • Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
  • Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
  • Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

payment-mcp-server MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

payment-mcp-server MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/santosh-chourasiya/payment-mcp-server'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server