xupersplit

Delete an entry

delete_entry

Destructive

Remove an expense or payment for good. Works on simple, accountless splits. Secure splits (created by a signed-in user) are read-only here and must be opened in a browser.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "split": "<split>",
      "entry_id": "<entry_id>"
    },
    "name": "delete_entry"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`split`	Yes	The split key, or the whole https://split.xuper.fun/k/<key> link.
`entry_id`	Yes	The entry's id, from get_split.

Output 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

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed4 schema fields changedNov 2, 2026
- removedOutput schema / properties / entries / items / properties / description / anyOf
```
Removed value: -[
-  {
-    "type": "string"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]
```
- addedOutput schema / properties / entries / items / properties / description / type
```
Added value: +[
+  "string",
+  "null"
+]
```
- removedOutput schema / properties / entries / items / properties / to / anyOf
```
Removed value: -[
-  {
-    "type": "string"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]
```
- addedOutput schema / properties / entries / items / properties / to / type
```
Added value: +[
+  "string",
+  "null"
+]
```
First observedAug 3, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: the deletion is permanent ('for good') and the tool cannot modify secure splits, which must be handled in a browser. It does not describe confirmation requirements or post-deletion effects, but the core behavioral traits are well covered.

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 short, front-loaded sentences with zero waste. The permanence warning and scope restriction are stated before the caveat about secure splits.

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 two-parameter destructive delete with an output schema, the description covers the essential context: what is removed, that it is permanent, and which splits are unsupported. The output schema handles return-value explanation, so nothing critical is missing.

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%, and both parameters are fully documented in the schema, including that entry_id comes from get_split and split accepts a key or full link. The description adds no further parameter-level semantics beyond that baseline.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb and resource: 'Remove an expense or payment for good.' It clearly identifies this as the permanent deletion tool, which implicitly distinguishes it from update_entry. However, the sibling differentiation is indirect rather than explicit naming.

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 states when the tool applies ('simple, accountless splits') and when it does not ('secure splits ... are read-only here and must be opened in a browser'). This gives clear context and an exclusion, though it does not name a sibling MCP tool as an alternative for related edit operations.

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

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.