xupersplit

Rename a participant

rename_participant

Change a participant's name. Works on simple, accountless splits. Secure splits (created by a signed-in user) are read-only here and must be opened in a browser.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

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

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

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds crucial behavioral context: secure splits are read-only and will fail for this operation, and it clarifies the persistence model (name change on the split). This adds meaningful value beyond the 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 concise sentences that are front-loaded with the core purpose and immediately followed by the critical limitation about secure splits. Zero wasted words — every sentence carries operational meaning.

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?

For a straightforward rename operation with full schema coverage and an output schema, the description is nearly complete. It covers the operational constraint (secure splits fail), which is the main risk. The only minor gap is not stating what happens to the returned data, though the output schema covers that.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100% and all three parameters have descriptions. The description adds context about the split parameter accepting either a key or a full link, and clarifies that participant can be a name or id. The description complements the schema well without redundancy.

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 the verb+resource (change a participant's name) and explicitly distinguishes between split types — simple accountless splits vs secure read-only splits. This differentiates it from siblings like add_participant and remove_participant by establishing the rename operation.

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?

The description provides clear context on when the tool works (simple, accountless splits) and specifically warns that secure splits must be opened in a browser. It doesn't explicitly name alternative tools but the constraints are well articulated.

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.

Rename a participant

Input Schema

Output Schema

TDQS

Glama MCP Gateway

TDQS

Resources