Create a bill from a chat/photo and share it with anyone
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, VAT and Taxes are included in this price |
| 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 |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are present but provide no constraints (all false). The description only says 'creates', implying mutation, but adds no detail on side effects, permissions, idempotency, or what happens to existing data. Behavioral context is minimal beyond the annotation defaults.
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 extremely concise at four words, with no redundant information. However, it is perhaps too brief for a tool with nested objects and an output schema. Overall, it is well-structured but borderline under-specified.
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 having an output schema and complex parameters, the description provides no context about return values, usage examples, or how it differs from 'update_bill'. The tool is adequately documented via schema but lacks contextual completeness for an AI agent to use effectively.
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 all parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the 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 states the verb (creates) and resource (bill). It distinguishes from siblings like 'update_bill' and 'set_bill_selections_batch', though it does not elaborate on what a 'bill' represents in this context. Overall, it is clear and specific enough.
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 is provided on when to use this tool versus siblings. The description does not mention any prerequisites, conditions, or scenarios where this tool is preferred. This is a significant gap given the presence of related tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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 |
| 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 |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate idempotentHint true and destructiveHint false; the description adds that it saves selections in one request but does not disclose other behavioral traits such as overwrite behavior or permissions.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose with no unnecessary words.
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?
For this simple batch update tool, the description is adequate. The output schema exists, but the description could clarify whether selections are merged or replaced.
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?
With 100% schema coverage, the description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions.
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 action (saves) and the target (current user selections for all bill items) in one request, distinguishing it from siblings like create_bill and update_bill.
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 batch saving selections but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, nor when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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, VAT and Taxes are included in this price |
| 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 |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate it's not read-only, not destructive, and idempotent. The description merely says 'updates' without elaborating on permissions, side effects, or constraints (e.g., whether missing fields are reset). No contradiction with annotations, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond the obvious.
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 concise sentence with no fluff. It conveys the essential action efficiently. However, it could include a brief mention of typical use without significantly increasing length.
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 complexity (5 parameters, nested objects) and the presence of an output schema, the description is too minimal. It does not explain the update semantics (e.g., full replacement vs partial update), nor does it address prerequisites or output expectations. The output schema may cover return values, but the description should at least hint at the scope of the update.
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%: all 5 parameters have detailed descriptions in the input schema. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond what's already documented structurally, so a 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 clearly states the verb 'updates' and the resource 'existing bill', effectively communicating the tool's primary action. It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_bill (create new) and set_bill_selections_batch (batch operations on selections). However, it could be more specific about which bill attributes are modifiable, as implied by the input schema.
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. It does not specify prerequisites (e.g., bill must exist) or alternative tools for different scenarios. The sibling list includes create_bill and set_bill_selections_batch, but no explanation of trade-offs is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claiming proves that you control a remote MCP connector. It does not move, proxy, or interrupt the server.
Open the connector listing, choose Claim ownership, and sign in to Glama.
Complete one verification method:
GitHub identity — fastest for official registry listings. For a namespace such as io.github.alice/server, link the matching GitHub user or an account that owns the GitHub organization, then choose Claim with GitHub.
HTTP challenge — works when you can deploy a public file. Generate a token, publish the exact JSON Glama shows at /.well-known/glama.json on the same origin as the connector, then choose Check HTTP challenge.
DNS challenge — works when you control DNS but cannot change the server. Generate a token, create the exact TXT record Glama shows, wait for it to propagate, then choose Check DNS challenge.
After verification, Glama sends a confirmation email and gives you access to listing details, thumbnails, health checks, and analytics. Keep the HTTP file or DNS record in place: Glama periodically checks it and ownership remains verified while the token is discoverable.
The HTTP ownership file has this structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"claim": "glama_claim_..."
}Claim tokens are opaque, stable, and bound to the signed-in Glama account. They contain no email address or other personal information. If Glama can no longer discover a verified HTTP or DNS token, it starts a seven-day grace period before removing claim-based access. Restore the same token during that period to keep ownership verified. Never publish an email address, Glama session token, GitHub token, or connector credential as ownership proof.
If verification fails, confirm that you copied the current token exactly. The HTTP file must be public, return valid JSON with a successful HTTP response, and stay on the connector's origin. DNS changes may need more time to propagate. A claim cannot transfer to a different origin or hostname: if the connector target changes, Glama starts the grace period and the new target must be claimed separately after the previous claim is released.
For a connector linked to the official MCP Registry, registry updates continue to replace its name, description, and URL by default. After claiming, open Manage connector and enable Use Glama listing details as the source of truth if edits made on Glama should be preserved. Categories and thumbnails are always managed on Glama; registry linkage and technical connection settings continue to sync.
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
To improve your MCP server's ranking:
Claim ownership of the server listing
Complete the server profile with an accurate description and thumbnail
Provide a test profile so Glama can connect to and evaluate the server
Keep tool definitions clear and complete to earn a high Tool Definition Quality Score (TDQS)
Route real usage through the Glama Gateway; more recorded successful server uses also improve the ranking
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.
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!
Split bills from your AI: read bills & balances, create equal splits, request settlements.
Pay any US bill in a snap, right from your chat — utilities, medical, rent, parking tickets & more.
Track and split shared expenses across trips, events, and groups. Create groups, add expenses, and…
Split shared expenses in a group — no account needed. See who owes whom and settle up.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
The three tools target distinct actions: creating a bill, updating a bill, and batch-setting selections. There is no overlap in purpose.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., create_bill, update_bill, set_bill_selections_batch), with clear and predictable naming.
With only 3 tools, the server feels bare for a bill-splitting domain. Operations like viewing, deleting, or finalizing bills are missing, making the tool count insufficient for a typical workflow.
The surface is severely incomplete: there are no tools to read (get/list) bills, delete bills, or settle splits. Agents cannot perform basic retrieval or complete the lifecycle of a bill.
