xupersplit

Create a split

create_split

Create a new xupersplit for sharing expenses in a group. No account needed. Returns a secret link — give it to the user and tell them to share it with the group, since anyone holding the link can see and edit the split.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`title`	Yes	What the split is for, e.g. "Ski trip".
`currency`	No	Currency code. Defaults to SEK.
`participants`	Yes	Names of everyone splitting, at least two.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`key`	Yes
`url`	Yes
`title`	Yes
`secure`	Yes
`entries`	Yes
`settled`	Yes
`currency`	Yes
`created_at`	Yes
`settlement`	Yes
`total_spent`	Yes
`participants`	Yes

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

With annotations only declaring non-readOnly and non-destructive (neutral), the description adds substantial behavioral context: no account needed, returns a secret link, and anyone holding the link can see and edit. This is meaningful transparency beyond annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

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

Three sentences, zero waste. It delivers purpose, usage instruction, and behavioral warning in a compact, front-loaded manner with no filler.

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

Completeness4/5

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

The tool has an output schema, so return values are covered. The description adequately addresses the creation flow, security implications, and authentication-free nature. It could slightly expand on what a 'xupersplit' is, but the context is sufficient for a creation tool with rich schema and output schema.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all three parameters (title, currency, participants) are documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics, but the schema fully covers them, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 description clearly states it creates a new xupersplit for sharing expenses in a group, with a specific verb+resource. It includes a key distinguishing detail (returns a secret link) that differentiates it from sibling tools like update_split or get_split.

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 clearly explains what to do with the returned link ('give it to the user and tell them to share it with the group') and conveys an important security caution about link holders. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the creation intent is self-evident against siblings.

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

All xupersplit tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Most tools are clearly distinct by resource and action (expense vs participant vs split vs payment). Minor ambiguity exists between update_entry and record_payment, since both modify existing entries, though their purposes (re-editing vs settlement) are documented. add_expense and record_payment could overlap conceptually since both record money movement, but descriptions clarify each.

Naming Consistency5/5

All 11 tools follow a clean verb_noun pattern: add_expense, add_participant, create_split, delete_entry, get_split, record_payment, remove_participant, rename_participant, set_payment_methods, update_entry, update_split. The convention is fully consistent with no mixed styles or vague verbs.

Tool Count5/5

11 tools is well within the ideal 3-15 range, and each earns its place by mapping to a distinct lifecycle operation across splits, participants, entries, and payments. The count is appropriately scoped for an expense-splitting domain and matched to the feature set described.

Completeness4/5

The surface covers the core lifecycle well: create/read/update for splits, add/remove/rename participants, and add/delete/update entries plus payment recording and settlement. The main gap is the explicit write operations only work on simple/accountless splits while secure splits are read-only, but that's a documented constraint rather than a missing tool. A dedicated 'duplicate_split' or 'list_splits' would be nice but isn't critical for the modeled flow.

Create a split

Input Schema

Output Schema

TDQS

Glama MCP Gateway

TDQS

Resources