money4k-split-bill
Server Details
Create a bill from a chat/photo and share it with anyone
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Tool Definition Quality
Average 3.4/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.
Each tool has a distinct purpose: creating a bill, updating a bill, and saving user selections. No overlap in functionality.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case: create_bill, set_bill_selections_batch, update_bill.
Three tools is on the lower side but still reasonable for a focused bill-splitting domain; however, it feels slightly thin.
The set lacks essential operations like retrieving, listing, or deleting bills, leaving significant gaps for typical bill management workflows.
Available Tools
3 toolscreate_billCreate BillBInspect
Creates a new bill.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| info | Yes | Additional bill information | |
| items | Yes | Bill items | |
| title | Yes | Bill title | |
| total_price | Yes | Bill total price |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Bill ID |
| info | Yes | Additional bill information |
| items | Yes | Bill items with selections |
| title | Yes | Bill title |
| owner_id | Yes | Bill owner user ID |
| share_url | Yes | Bill share URL |
| created_at | Yes | Creation time in RFC3339 UTC |
| updated_at | Yes | Update time in RFC3339 UTC |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) already indicate it's a write operation with no destructive side effects. The description adds no additional behavioral context beyond the obvious creation, so it meets the baseline but offers no extra insight.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence that is front-loaded and unambiguous. Every word serves a purpose, though it could arguably be expanded with minimal overhead for better guidance.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (four required parameters, nested objects, and multiple sibling tools), the description is insufficient. It does not explain return values (though output schema exists), nor does it provide context on prerequisites or the creation process.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all four parameters with detailed descriptions. The tool description adds no extra meaning; it simply states the tool's purpose, leaving parameter semantics entirely to the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Creates a new bill' clearly specifies the verb (creates) and resource (bill), and distinguishes from sibling tools like 'update_bill' which modify existing bills and 'set_bill_selections_batch' which likely handles batch operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings, such as whether to use it for new bills exclusively or if it can also replace existing bills. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
set_bill_selections_batchSet Bill Selections BatchAIdempotentInspect
Saves current user selections for all bill items in one request.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| bill_id | Yes | Bill ID to update selections for | |
| selections | Yes | Selections by item |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Bill ID |
| info | Yes | Additional bill information |
| items | Yes | Bill items with selections |
| title | Yes | Bill title |
| owner_id | Yes | Bill owner user ID |
| share_url | Yes | Bill share URL |
| created_at | Yes | Creation time in RFC3339 UTC |
| updated_at | Yes | Update time in RFC3339 UTC |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, which align with the description. However, the description adds no extra behavioral details, such as whether selections are replaced or merged, beyond what annotations provide.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence of 11 words, front-loaded with key action and resource. Every word is necessary and no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the low complexity and presence of an output schema, the description is mostly complete. It could mention that selections overwrite existing ones, but it still communicates the core functionality.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for bill_id and selections. The description does not add additional meaning beyond what is already in the schema, so it meets the baseline with no extra value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'saves' and the resource 'user selections for all bill items', indicating a batch operation. It effectively distinguishes from siblings like create_bill and update_bill, which manage the bill itself rather than selections.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for saving multiple selections in one request but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like update_bill. No guidance on prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
update_billUpdate BillBIdempotentInspect
Updates an existing bill.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| info | Yes | Additional bill information | |
| items | Yes | Bill items | |
| title | Yes | Bill title | |
| bill_id | Yes | Bill ID to update | |
| total_price | Yes | Bill total price |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Bill ID |
| info | Yes | Additional bill information |
| items | Yes | Bill items with selections |
| title | Yes | Bill title |
| owner_id | Yes | Bill owner user ID |
| share_url | Yes | Bill share URL |
| created_at | Yes | Creation time in RFC3339 UTC |
| updated_at | Yes | Update time in RFC3339 UTC |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds no extra context beyond 'updates'. It does not discuss side effects, authorization needs, or behavior not covered by annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, concise but overly minimal. It earns its place but lacks informative structure.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite rich schema and output schema, the description does not provide sufficient context for a complex tool with nested parameters. Missing relationships to sibling tools and update behavior details.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema itself.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'updates' and resource 'existing bill', distinguishing it from sibling tools create_bill (creation) and set_bill_selections_batch (batch operations).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or appropriate context for use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!