Skip to main content
Glama

Add a shared expense

well_create_expense_line

Add one expense to a shared-expense group: who paid, how much, and how it splits between members. It writes only inside Well and sends nothing.

payer_person_id paid amount (a plain decimal in the group's currency). shares lists every member who owes a part, each with a whole weight: equal weights split equally, a weight of 2 owes twice a weight of 1. The payer is in shares when they owe a part too. The line and its shares are written together, or not at all. Well splits the amount exactly by weight: never compute the parts yourself.

Call it only after the person said yes to this expense and its split, in this conversation.

Read outcome: written with expense_line_id, or refused means nothing was written. reason names why: group_not_found (no such group in this workspace), person_not_found (a person id names no person of this workspace), not_a_member, payer_not_a_member, from_not_a_member or to_not_a_member (that person is not a member of the group: add them first), currency_mismatch (the group holds one other currency), invalid_amount, invalid_weight, no_shares, duplicate_share, same_person, already_a_member, caller_not_a_member or caller_not_a_person_here (the call names no person of this workspace).

When the token authorizes one workspace, call this directly — no workspace call is needed first. When it authorizes several, this read will not guess which one you mean: pass workspace_id on the call.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
amountYesWhat the payer paid, a plain decimal such as 90 or 12.50, in the group's currency.
sharesYesEvery member who owes a part, each once.
currencyYesThe group's currency.
document_idNoThe receipt in this workspace, when one is on file.
workspace_idNoTarget workspace. Omit when the token authorizes one workspace. Required when it authorizes several — a write lands in exactly one workspace and this call would not say which.
conversation_idNoThe conversation id returned by the previous Well result, in its meta under well/conversation_id, in its structuredContent, or in its JSON text block. Pass it back on every call in the same conversation, including a call a card makes, so the chosen workspace and the earlier answers still apply. It decides the conversation on its own: nothing the host states about the session replaces it. Omit it only on the first call of a conversation.
idempotency_keyNoOptional client-supplied key. A retried write with the same key returns the original result instead of re-applying the operation.
payer_person_idYesThe member who paid.
workspace_scopeNoRestrict this call to the family: the token's primary workspace plus the company workspaces under it that you are a member of. Unrelated authorized workspaces drop out of the read; row reads merge across the family, while a per-workspace figure still reports exactly one workspace.
expense_group_idYesThe group, a row of `well_list_expense_groups`.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
errorNo
reasonNo
outcomeNo
successYes
conversation_idNoThe conversation this result belongs to. Pass it back as the conversation_id argument on every later Well call in the same conversation.
expense_line_idNo
newly_connectedNoTools that connected to this workspace since the last result and that no session was told about yet, oldest first. Present only when at least one tool is new. The connected-line rule says when to tell an entry; when it does, one line per entry, in the person's language: "<name> is connected.". Never fold several entries into one sentence. Each entry comes back once, on one result only: never repeat its line later.
expense_group_idNo
conversation_id_noteNoPresent only when the server opened a fresh lane, stating that no choice recorded earlier was read.
conversation_id_sourceNoWhere the conversation id came from: the host's own request meta, the caller's argument, or a fresh lane the server opened.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), the description discloses real behavioral traits: writes stay inside Well and send nothing externally, the line and its shares are written atomically ('together, or not at all'), and the caller must not compute splits itself. It also explains the outcome/refused contract and names the refusal reasons, which is the kind of recovery context annotations cannot carry.

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?

Front-loaded with the action, then mechanics, then precondition, then failures, then routing — a sensible order with almost no filler. The one cost is the long enumerated refusal-reason list, which partly restates return values the tool already exposes via its output schema.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a 10-parameter write tool with annotations and an output schema, this is complete: it covers atomicity, consent precondition, multi-workspace routing, and failure recovery. Because an output schema exists, the description is not obliged to explain return values, and what it does add on top is all operationally relevant.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine meaning: it explains that `payer_person_id` paid `amount` in the group's currency, that `shares` must list every member who owes a part, that the payer is included when they owe a part too, and that a weight of 2 owes twice a weight of 1 versus equal weights splitting equally. That is more than the schema's terse '1 for an equal part' note.

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 first sentence names a specific verb and resource — 'Add one expense to a shared-expense group' — and immediately enumerates the three things it captures (who paid, how much, how it splits). Because it requires an existing `expense_group_id` rather than creating a group, it is cleanly separable from siblings like well_create_expense_group and well_create_expense_group_member. An agent can identify it without opening the schema.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It gives a hard precondition ('Call it only after the person said yes to this expense and its split, in this conversation') and explicit workspace routing rules (call directly when the token authorizes one workspace, pass `workspace_id` when it authorizes several). What it lacks is any named alternative — it never says where to go instead when the group does not exist yet or when a settle-up rather than an expense is wanted.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources