india-payments-mcp
Related Servers
Alternatives to india-payments-mcp
No user-submitted related servers found.
Related Servers
- AlicenseAqualityDmaintenanceEnables AI agents and developers to securely access Paytm's Payments and Business Payments APIs via MCP, allowing contextual automation of payment workflows like refunds, settlement tracking, and transaction status checks.3MIT
- FlicenseNot gradedqualityNot gradedmaintenanceEnables AI agents to interact with multiple payment providers (Stripe, Paystack) through a unified API. Supports payment initialization, verification, refunds, customer management, and invoicing without requiring knowledge of specific provider implementations.2-
- AlicenseAqualityDmaintenanceA unified MCP server for West African payment providers, enabling AI agents and REST clients to initiate payments, payouts, refunds, and manage webhooks across 10 providers with a single API.81 npmMIT
- FlicenseNot gradedqualityBmaintenanceEnables conversational AI agents to manage Razorpay payments directly, including payment lookups, order creation, refunds, UPI QR generation, and real-time webhook triage via the Model Context Protocol.-
- FlicenseNot gradedqualityBmaintenanceEnables Razorpay merchants to become AI-transactable by letting MCP-compatible agents search catalogs, create real Razorpay orders, and complete purchases with enforced wallet limits and audit trails.-
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityBmaintenanceLets AI agents turn a UPI QR code plus cart details into a single review-and-pay page link that opens GPay, PhonePe or Paytm pre-filled, so a human pays in one tap. Agents can also poll live payment status and set or confirm it, closing the checkout loop with signed webhooks.1MIT
TDQS
Scored across 17 tools
Most tools target a distinct resource+action (create_payment, refund, verify_webhook, simulate_webhook, mock_complete_payment are clearly separated by mode/purpose). There is mild overlap among the four introspective tools — list_providers vs get_capabilities vs check_config vs recommend_gateway all describe gateway metadata/env vars, and get_status vs verify_payment require reading the descriptions carefully to distinguish authoritative fetch from callback validation.
Every tool uses the same payments_ prefix followed by a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern (payments_get_status, payments_create_subscription). No mixing of conventions or vague one-word verbs.
17 tools is slightly above the ideal 3-15 band but justifiable given multi-gateway support plus subscription, webhook, settlement and scaffolding flows. Each tool maps to a real integration step rather than padding.
Core lifecycle is well covered: create/verify/status, refund + refund status, webhooks (verify/simulate), subscriptions create/cancel, customers, settlements and integration generation. Gaps remain for read/list operations — no list_payments/orders, get_subscription, list_subscriptions, or capture of authorised payments — which would be needed for full reconciliation and subscription management.