Skip to main content
Glama

Record an expense repayment

well_create_expense_settlement

Record one repayment in a shared-expense group: a member paid another member back. It records what already happened: it moves no money, writes only inside Well and sends nothing.

from_person_id paid to_person_id the amount (a plain decimal in the group's currency) on settled_on (YYYY-MM-DD), by method_code. Both must be members of the group.

Call it only after the person said yes to recording this repayment, in this conversation.

Read outcome: written with expense_group_settlement_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

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
amountYesThe amount repaid, a plain decimal in the group's currency.
currencyYesThe group's currency.
settled_onYesThe day of the repayment, YYYY-MM-DD.
method_codeYesHow the member paid back.
to_person_idYesThe member who was paid back.
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.
from_person_idYesThe member who paid back.
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.
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

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.
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.
expense_group_settlement_idNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations cover only the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=false). The description goes well beyond them: it discloses that no money moves and nothing is sent, that the write is confined to Well, that outcome='refused' means nothing was written, and it enumerates the refusal reasons. That is exactly the extra context the 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.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The core statement and consent precondition are front-loaded and waste-free. However, the reason-code list is inflated with codes that cannot apply to a repayment (invalid_weight, no_shares, duplicate_share, already_a_member), which look copied from share/expense creation and dilute the signal; the trailing sentence calling a write a 'read' is also slightly muddled.

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 write with an output schema, the definition covers everything an agent needs before calling: the consent precondition, workspace routing, required membership relationships, and the meaning of outcome and refusal reasons. Return formatting is correctly left to the output schema rather than restated.

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 description coverage is 100%, so field meanings are already documented and the baseline would be 3. The description adds relational semantics the schema does not: which id paid which id, that the amount is in the group's currency, and that both people must be members of the group — a cross-parameter constraint the schema cannot express.

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?

States a specific verb and resource with scope: 'Record one repayment in a shared-expense group: a member paid another member back.' It further pins the semantic boundary against the sibling creation tools by clarifying that it records what already happened and moves no money, so an agent can tell it apart from well_create_expense_line without opening either 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?

Gives an explicit precondition ('Call it only after the person said yes to recording this repayment, in this conversation') and clear routing for workspace ambiguity (call directly with a single-workspace token, pass workspace_id when the token authorizes several). It never names an alternative sibling tool for adjacent intent, so it stops short of full when-not/alternative coverage.

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