{"passport":{"unfragile":{"@version":"1.0","version":"2026-05","artifact":{"id":"awesome-paymcp","slug":"paymcp","name":"PayMCP","type":"mcp","url":"https://github.com/blustAI/paymcp","page_url":"https://unfragile.ai/paymcp","categories":["mcp-servers"],"tags":[],"pricing":{"model":"open_source","free":true,"starting_price":null},"status":"active","verified":false},"capabilities":[{"id":"awesome-paymcp__cap_0","uri":"capability://tool.use.integration.decorator.based.payment.authorization.for.mcp.tools","name":"decorator-based payment authorization for mcp tools","description":"Converts any MCP tool into a paid endpoint using a lightweight Python or TypeScript decorator that intercepts tool invocations, validates payment credentials, and gates execution. The decorator pattern wraps the original tool function without modifying its signature, injecting payment validation logic at runtime before the tool executes. Supports multiple payment providers through a pluggable backend architecture.","intents":["I want to monetize my MCP tools without rewriting them","I need to add payment gates to existing tool implementations with minimal code changes","I want to control which users can call which tools based on payment status"],"best_for":["MCP server developers building commercial tool marketplaces","teams monetizing internal tool libraries across organizations","solo developers adding subscription gates to open-source MCP tools"],"limitations":["Decorator approach requires tools to be defined as functions or methods — incompatible with class-based tool definitions without wrapper functions","Payment validation adds latency per tool invocation (timing depends on payment provider API response time)","No built-in retry logic for transient payment provider failures — requires external circuit breaker implementation","Decorator stacking with other decorators may cause unexpected behavior if payment decorator is not outermost"],"requires":["Python 3.8+ (for Python version) or Node.js 16+ (for TypeScript version)","Active MCP server implementation","Payment provider API credentials (Stripe, custom backend, etc.)","paymcp library installed via pip or npm"],"input_types":["MCP tool function with arbitrary parameters","payment provider credentials (API keys, tokens)","user/client identifier for payment lookup"],"output_types":["tool execution result (if payment authorized)","payment error response (if payment denied)","structured payment validation metadata"],"categories":["tool-use-integration","payment-gating"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"awesome-paymcp__cap_1","uri":"capability://tool.use.integration.payment.provider.abstraction.layer","name":"payment provider abstraction layer","description":"Provides a unified interface for integrating multiple payment backends (Stripe, custom HTTP endpoints, etc.) through a pluggable provider pattern. The abstraction decouples tool payment logic from specific payment provider implementations, allowing developers to swap providers or support multiple providers simultaneously without changing tool code. Implements provider-agnostic validation and error handling.","intents":["I want to support multiple payment providers without duplicating payment logic in each tool","I need to switch payment providers without rewriting my MCP tools","I want to implement a custom payment backend that doesn't use Stripe"],"best_for":["MCP server operators supporting diverse payment methods across tools","enterprises with custom billing systems integrating with MCP","developers building payment-agnostic tool frameworks"],"limitations":["Provider abstraction adds a thin layer of indirection — requires implementing provider interface for custom backends","Error handling is provider-specific — different providers return different error codes/messages requiring normalization","No built-in provider health checks or fallback logic — requires external monitoring","Async provider calls may block tool execution if not properly configured"],"requires":["paymcp library with provider support","at least one payment provider configured (Stripe API key, custom endpoint URL, etc.)","Python 3.8+ or Node.js 16+"],"input_types":["provider configuration object (API credentials, endpoint URLs)","payment request parameters (user ID, tool ID, amount)","provider-specific metadata (customer ID, subscription tier, etc.)"],"output_types":["standardized payment validation response","provider-specific error codes mapped to common error types","transaction metadata for logging/auditing"],"categories":["tool-use-integration","payment-gating"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"awesome-paymcp__cap_2","uri":"capability://tool.use.integration.user.client.credential.validation.and.token.management","name":"user/client credential validation and token management","description":"Manages authentication credentials and payment tokens for tool invocations, validating that incoming requests include valid payment authorization before tool execution. Implements credential extraction from MCP request context, token validation against payment provider, and credential caching to reduce provider API calls. Supports both API key and OAuth token patterns.","intents":["I need to verify that a user has paid before allowing them to call my tool","I want to cache payment validation results to reduce API calls to my payment provider","I need to extract and validate payment credentials from MCP request headers/context"],"best_for":["MCP servers requiring per-user payment authorization","high-traffic tool endpoints where payment validation latency matters","multi-tenant MCP deployments with per-user billing"],"limitations":["Credential caching introduces eventual consistency — cached tokens may not reflect real-time payment status changes","Cache invalidation requires manual TTL configuration or external cache invalidation signals","No built-in credential rotation or expiration handling — requires external token management","Credential extraction depends on MCP client implementation — non-standard header formats may not be recognized"],"requires":["paymcp library with credential management support","MCP client sending credentials in standard format (Authorization header, custom context, etc.)","payment provider supporting token validation API","optional: Redis or in-memory cache for credential caching"],"input_types":["MCP request with embedded credentials (API key, OAuth token, custom token)","user/client identifier","payment provider configuration"],"output_types":["boolean validation result (authorized/unauthorized)","user/client metadata (subscription tier, remaining balance, etc.)","validation error details (expired token, insufficient balance, etc.)"],"categories":["tool-use-integration","safety-moderation"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"awesome-paymcp__cap_3","uri":"capability://automation.workflow.payment.event.logging.and.audit.trail.generation","name":"payment event logging and audit trail generation","description":"Automatically captures payment-related events (authorization attempts, successes, failures, balance changes) and generates structured audit logs for compliance and debugging. Logs include timestamp, user ID, tool ID, payment status, provider response, and error details. Supports custom log handlers for integration with external logging systems (CloudWatch, Datadog, etc.).","intents":["I need to track which users called which paid tools and when for billing reconciliation","I want to debug payment failures and see the exact provider response","I need audit logs for compliance with payment regulations"],"best_for":["regulated industries requiring payment audit trails (fintech, healthcare)","multi-tenant MCP operators tracking per-customer tool usage","developers debugging payment provider integration issues"],"limitations":["Logging adds overhead per tool invocation — high-frequency tools may see latency impact","Log storage is not included — requires external logging backend (file, database, cloud service)","No built-in log retention policies — requires external log management","Custom log handlers must be thread-safe if used in concurrent MCP environments"],"requires":["paymcp library with logging support","optional: external logging backend (file system, CloudWatch, Datadog, etc.)","Python 3.8+ or Node.js 16+"],"input_types":["payment event data (user ID, tool ID, status, provider response)","custom log handler configuration","log level settings (debug, info, warning, error)"],"output_types":["structured log entries (JSON or text format)","audit trail records with timestamps and metadata","error logs with provider response details"],"categories":["automation-workflow","safety-moderation"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"awesome-paymcp__cap_4","uri":"capability://automation.workflow.rate.limiting.and.quota.enforcement.per.user.tool","name":"rate limiting and quota enforcement per user/tool","description":"Enforces usage quotas and rate limits on paid tools based on user subscription tier or payment status, preventing abuse and ensuring fair resource allocation. Implements quota tracking (calls per minute/hour/day), tier-based limits (free tier: 10 calls/day, pro tier: 1000 calls/day), and quota reset scheduling. Integrates with payment provider to determine user tier and remaining quota.","intents":["I want to limit free users to 10 API calls per day while pro users get unlimited calls","I need to prevent abuse by rate-limiting tool calls to 100 per minute per user","I want to enforce different quotas for different subscription tiers"],"best_for":["SaaS MCP operators with tiered pricing models","public MCP tool marketplaces preventing abuse","teams managing shared tool resources across departments"],"limitations":["Quota tracking requires state storage (Redis, database) — no built-in persistence","Distributed quota enforcement is complex — requires external coordination for multi-instance deployments","Quota reset scheduling must be configured per tier — no automatic tier detection from payment provider","Rate limiting granularity is per-user — no support for IP-based or API-key-based rate limiting"],"requires":["paymcp library with quota support","external state store for quota tracking (Redis, database, etc.)","payment provider integration to determine user tier","Python 3.8+ or Node.js 16+"],"input_types":["user ID and subscription tier","quota configuration (limits per time period, tier-based limits)","tool ID for per-tool quota tracking"],"output_types":["quota enforcement decision (allow/deny)","remaining quota for user","quota reset timestamp","rate limit error response (429 Too Many Requests)"],"categories":["automation-workflow","safety-moderation"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"awesome-paymcp__cap_5","uri":"capability://automation.workflow.payment.failure.handling.and.retry.logic","name":"payment failure handling and retry logic","description":"Implements configurable error handling for payment provider failures, including retry strategies (exponential backoff, jitter), fallback behaviors (deny access, allow with deferred payment, etc.), and detailed error reporting. Distinguishes between transient failures (network timeout, provider temporarily unavailable) and permanent failures (invalid credentials, insufficient balance) to apply appropriate retry logic.","intents":["I want my tools to retry payment validation if the provider is temporarily unavailable","I need to handle payment provider errors gracefully without crashing my MCP server","I want to allow tool execution with deferred payment if the provider is down"],"best_for":["production MCP deployments requiring high availability despite payment provider outages","teams with strict SLA requirements for tool availability","operators of critical tools that should not be blocked by payment provider issues"],"limitations":["Retry logic adds latency to tool invocations — exponential backoff may delay tool execution by seconds","Distinguishing transient vs permanent failures requires provider-specific error code mapping","Deferred payment fallback creates billing reconciliation complexity — requires manual payment verification later","No built-in circuit breaker — requires external monitoring to detect persistent provider failures"],"requires":["paymcp library with retry support","payment provider supporting error codes/status codes","optional: external circuit breaker or health check service","Python 3.8+ or Node.js 16+"],"input_types":["retry configuration (max retries, backoff strategy, timeout)","fallback behavior configuration (deny, allow-deferred, etc.)","payment provider error response"],"output_types":["retry decision (retry/fail/fallback)","detailed error information with provider error code","fallback action result (tool execution allowed/denied)","retry attempt metadata (attempt number, backoff delay, etc.)"],"categories":["automation-workflow","safety-moderation"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"awesome-paymcp__cap_6","uri":"capability://tool.use.integration.cross.language.support.python.and.typescript.with.unified.api","name":"cross-language support (python and typescript) with unified api","description":"Provides identical decorator-based payment gating API in both Python and TypeScript, allowing developers to use the same patterns regardless of implementation language. Maintains feature parity between implementations (same decorator syntax, same provider abstraction, same configuration format) while using language-native patterns (Python decorators, TypeScript decorators). Shared documentation and examples work across both languages.","intents":["I have MCP tools in both Python and TypeScript and want consistent payment gating across them","I want to migrate my MCP tools from Python to TypeScript without relearning the payment API","I need to use paymcp in a polyglot MCP environment"],"best_for":["organizations with mixed Python/TypeScript MCP tool codebases","developers building language-agnostic MCP frameworks","teams standardizing on paymcp across multiple projects"],"limitations":["Feature parity requires maintaining two separate codebases — may lag if one implementation gets features first","Language-specific quirks (async/await patterns, error handling) may differ between implementations","Documentation must be maintained for both languages — risk of inconsistency","Testing must cover both implementations — doubles test maintenance burden"],"requires":["Python 3.8+ (for Python version) via pip install paymcp","Node.js 16+ (for TypeScript version) via npm install paymcp","TypeScript 4.5+ (for TypeScript version)"],"input_types":["MCP tool function (Python function or TypeScript function)","decorator configuration (payment provider, quota settings, etc.)"],"output_types":["decorated tool function with payment gating","payment validation result"],"categories":["tool-use-integration","code-generation-editing"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"awesome-paymcp__cap_7","uri":"capability://tool.use.integration.mcp.protocol.level.integration.and.context.extraction","name":"mcp protocol-level integration and context extraction","description":"Integrates directly with the MCP protocol layer to extract payment credentials and user context from MCP request metadata, without requiring explicit parameter passing in tool signatures. Implements MCP context parsing to retrieve user ID, API key, subscription tier, and other payment-relevant metadata from MCP request headers or custom context fields. Operates transparently to tool implementations.","intents":["I want to extract payment credentials from MCP request context without modifying tool signatures","I need to access user subscription tier from MCP context to enforce tier-based quotas","I want payment gating to work transparently without tools knowing about payment logic"],"best_for":["MCP server developers wanting transparent payment gating without tool modifications","teams with existing MCP tools that cannot be modified to accept payment parameters","operators of MCP tool marketplaces with standardized credential passing"],"limitations":["MCP context extraction depends on MCP client implementation — non-standard clients may not provide expected context","Credential format must be standardized across all clients — requires client coordination","No built-in context validation — malformed context may cause payment validation failures","MCP protocol version compatibility — changes to MCP protocol may require updates"],"requires":["paymcp library with MCP integration","MCP server implementation (Python or TypeScript)","MCP clients sending credentials in standard format","Python 3.8+ or Node.js 16+"],"input_types":["MCP request with embedded context (user ID, API key, subscription tier)","MCP protocol metadata"],"output_types":["extracted payment context (user ID, tier, credentials)","validation result based on extracted context"],"categories":["tool-use-integration","memory-knowledge"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0}],"trust":{"score":30,"verified":false,"data_access_risk":"high","permissions":["Python 3.8+ (for Python version) or Node.js 16+ (for TypeScript version)","Active MCP server implementation","Payment provider API credentials (Stripe, custom backend, etc.)","paymcp library installed via pip or npm","paymcp library with provider support","at least one payment provider configured (Stripe API key, custom endpoint URL, etc.)","Python 3.8+ or Node.js 16+","paymcp library with credential management support","MCP client sending credentials in standard format (Authorization header, custom context, etc.)","payment provider supporting token validation API"],"failure_modes":["Decorator approach requires tools to be defined as functions or methods — incompatible with class-based tool definitions without wrapper functions","Payment validation adds latency per tool invocation (timing depends on payment provider API response time)","No built-in retry logic for transient payment provider failures — requires external circuit breaker implementation","Decorator stacking with other decorators may cause unexpected behavior if payment decorator is not outermost","Provider abstraction adds a thin layer of indirection — requires implementing provider interface for custom backends","Error handling is provider-specific — different providers return different error codes/messages requiring normalization","No built-in provider health checks or fallback logic — requires external monitoring","Async provider calls may block tool execution if not properly configured","Credential caching introduces eventual consistency — cached tokens may not reflect real-time payment status changes","Cache invalidation requires manual TTL configuration or external cache invalidation signals","builder identity is not verified yet","no observed match outcomes yet"],"rank_breakdown":{"adoption":0.05,"quality":0.41,"ecosystem":0.39999999999999997,"match_graph":0.25,"freshness":0.6,"weights":{"adoption":0.25,"quality":0.25,"ecosystem":0.15,"match_graph":0.23,"freshness":0.12}},"observed_outcomes":{"matches":0,"success_rate":0,"avg_confidence":0,"top_intents":[],"last_matched_at":null},"maintenance":{"status":"active","updated_at":"2026-06-17T09:51:03.579Z","last_scraped_at":"2026-05-03T14:00:18.053Z","last_commit":null},"community":{"stars":null,"forks":null,"weekly_downloads":null,"model_downloads":null,"model_likes":null}},"distribution":{"claim_url":"https://unfragile.ai/submit?claim=paymcp","compare_url":"https://unfragile.ai/compare?artifact=paymcp"}},"signature":"mhU6etftp2LzTBfdXptVpJk05HKVU6EWOvRW2679M3cl+T+WrbNq4dmjsD73WflrBTg6u/ZaMzXjMGzOqAvGAQ==","signedAt":"2026-06-21T00:32:29.727Z","signedBy":"unfragile.ai","version":1},"_links":{"self":"https://unfragile.ai/api/v1/passport/paymcp","artifact":"https://unfragile.ai/paymcp","verify":"https://unfragile.ai/api/v1/verify?slug=paymcp","publicKey":"https://unfragile.ai/api/v1/trust-passport-public-key","spec":"https://unfragile.ai/trust","schema":"https://unfragile.ai/schema.json","docs":"https://unfragile.ai/docs"}}