Skip to main content
Glama

xupersplit

by io.github.kanylbullen

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.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
splitYesThe split key, or the whole https://split.xuper.fun/k/<key> link.
methodsYes
participantYesWhose details these are — a participant's name (or id) in this split.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
keyYes
urlYes
titleYes
secureYes
entriesYes
settledYes
currencyYes
created_atYes
settlementYes
total_spentYes
participantsYes

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true; description adds the key behavior that it replaces the entire current list (providing the empty-array-to-clear hint). It also discloses the secure-split read-only restriction, which is valuable operational context beyond annotations. Minor gap: doesn't mention whether changes are reversible or any confirmation/response behavior, but given existing annotations the bar is lower.

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 tight sentences, all earning their place. Front-loads the purpose, adds the replacement behavior, then the scope restriction. Zero filler or redundancy.

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 mutation tool with destructiveHint, the description thoroughly covers purpose, scope limits, and the critical empty-array-to-clear behavior. It notes the tools applies only to simple splits, which is essential for an agent choosing among 11 siblings. Output schema exists, so return format needs no explanation. Minor gap: doesn't mention maxItems=8 limit but that's captured in schema.

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 already explains 'split', 'value', and 'participant' at 67% coverage. Description adds meaning beyond schema: clarifies methods array can be empty to clear, explains the replace-semantics, and connects methods to the broader purpose (QR code/pay link). The 'value' parameter's format is fully documented in schema, so little added here, but the array-replacement semantics is meaningful added value.

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?

Description clearly states verb+resource+effect: 'Set how a participant wants to be paid back' and explicitly notes the consequence ('so the split can show a QR code or pay link'). Differentiates from siblings by specifying it works only on simple, accountless splits and that it replaces the current list.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use rationale (to enable QR code/pay link display), and clearly states exclusions: secure splits are read-only and must be opened in a browser. This effectively tells the agent when NOT to use this tool among sibling tools like record_payment or update_split.

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

All xupersplit toolsInspect
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.

Resources