xupersplit

Set payment details

set_payment_methods

Destructive

Set how a participant wants to be paid back, so the split can show a QR code or pay link. Replaces their current list (pass an empty array to clear it). 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>",
      "methods": "<methods>"
    },
    "name": "set_payment_methods"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`split`	Yes	The split key, or the whole https://split.xuper.fun/k/<key> link.
`methods`	Yes
`participant`	Yes	Whose details these are — 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

A4.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Goes beyond the destructiveHint=true annotation by spelling out that the whole list is replaced and that an empty array clears it — a non-obvious but important destruction detail. The accountless-split restriction adds operational context, though it doesn't cover ordering, per-provider validation, or what happens on partial failure.

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 with zero filler: purpose first, then the replacement/clear semantics, then the applicability constraint. Each sentence carries distinct information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values don't need explanation. For a 3-param mutation tool, the description covers what it does, the destructive replacement behavior, and the excluded split type — everything needed to call it correctly or avoid calling it.

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 67% and the description fills the key gap: `methods` is a full replacement, not an append, and `[]` clears it. Participant and split semantics are already documented in the schema, so no further detail is required.

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 ('Set how a participant wants to be paid back') plus the downstream effect (QR code / pay link), which is exactly the effect that distinguishes it from record_payment or add_participant. An agent can pick this out of the sibling list without opening a schema.

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?

Explicit 'when not': 'Works on simple, accountless splits. Secure splits (created by a signed-in user) are read-only here and must be opened in a browser.' It names the excluded case and the alternative channel, leaving nothing to inference.

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.