xupersplit

Remove a participant

remove_participant

Destructive

Remove someone from a split. Only works if they aren't on any expense yet. 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>",
      "participant": "<participant>"
    },
    "name": "remove_participant"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`split`	Yes	The split key, or the whole https://split.xuper.fun/k/<key> link.
`participant`	Yes	Who to remove — a participant's name (or id) in this 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

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is known; the description adds the gating condition that the participant must have no expenses and that secure splits are read-only here. It stops short of saying whether removal is reversible or what happens on failure, but the key behavioral gates are disclosed.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action, then preconditions, then the environment limitation. Every sentence carries a distinct constraint; 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?

An output schema exists and annotations cover destructiveness, so the description only needs to cover preconditions and failure modes — which it does. Minor gap: it doesn't state what the caller should do if the participant has expenses (e.g., delete entries first), leaving the recovery path implicit.

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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema including the accepted split-key-or-URL form and name-or-id participant identifier. The description adds nothing beyond what the schema already provides, which meets the baseline for fully documented schemas.

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 ("Remove someone from a split") that is immediately distinguishable from add_participant and rename_participant by the verb alone. The follow-on constraints further sharpen what this tool is and isn't.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives explicit preconditions ("Only works if they aren't on any expense yet"), scope ("simple, accountless splits"), and an exclusion with the correct alternative path (secure splits must be opened in a browser). The when-not case is spelled out, which is rare and valuable.

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.