Skip to main content
Glama
votsie

wata-mcp

by votsie
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Related Servers

Alternatives to wata-mcp

No user-submitted related servers found.

    Related Servers

    • Xental MCP Server

      XENTAL-PayLibre
      A
      license
      A
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      Enables AI agents to operate Xental merchant accounts via natural language, provisioning virtual accounts, monitoring transactions, and executing payouts.
      13
      MIT

    • @deonpay/mcp-server

      hectortemich
      A
      license
      A
      quality
      D
      maintenance
      Talk to your DeonPay merchant account from any MCP-compatible AI host. Enables reading transactions, creating payment links, inspecting subscriptions, and more.
      20
      4 npm
      MIT

    • Fin-MCP Payment Server

      Veri5ied
      F
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      Not graded
      maintenance
      Enables 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
      -

    • Magpie MCP Server

      domdanao
      A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      D
      maintenance
      Enables AI agents to access Magpie Payment Platform APIs for processing payments, creating checkout sessions, sending invoices, and managing payment links through natural conversation.
      23 npm
      2
      MIT
    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

    C2.8/5.0

    Scored across 90 tools

    Disambiguation3/5

    The toolset is organized by domain prefixes (dg, acq, wallet, terminal), but several tools have overlapping purposes: wata_dg_order_get vs wata_digital_goods_order_get both fetch digital-goods orders, and cabinet vs acq variants exist for links and transactions. Descriptions are detailed and clarify most differences, but the sheer number of similar get/list tools creates real selection ambiguity.

    Naming Consistency3/5

    Most tools follow a wata_<domain>_<resource>_<action> pattern, but the same digital-goods domain is inconsistently abbreviated as dg in some tools and digital_goods in others. Also, withdraw and withdrawal are used interchangeably in the wallet group, and list vs find appear in parallel link/transaction tools. Still readable and mostly predictable.

    Tool Count1/5

    With 90 tools, this is far beyond the 25+ threshold and even the 50+ extreme-mismatch threshold. While the WATA platform is broad, this many tools in one MCP server will overwhelm context limits and confuse tool selection; it should be split into domain-specific servers.

    Completeness4/5

    The surface is very complete for a payment platform: auth, terminals, transactions, refunds, links, chargebacks, subscriptions, wallet operations, digital goods, acquiring, support, and webhooks are all represented, with wata_raw_request as a fallback. Minor gaps remain (no explicit update for links, no cancel for unpaid digital-goods orders, no chargeback response), but agents can work around them.

    Maintenance

    ActivityMaintained
    ResponsivenessNo issues

    Resources