xupersplit

Update an entry

update_entry

Change an existing expense or payment. Only the fields you pass are changed. Entry ids come from get_split. 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": "update_entry"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`to`	No	New recipient — payments only.
`date`	No	Date as YYYY-MM-DD. Defaults to today.
`split`	Yes	The split key, or the whole https://split.xuper.fun/k/<key> link.
`amount`	No	Amount in the split's currency, as a decimal (e.g. 249.50).
`shares`	No	Uneven split. Either an exact `amount` per person (must add up to the total) or a relative `weight` per person (e.g. weight 2 for a couple). Don't combine with split_between.
`paid_by`	No	Move the entry to a different payer.
`entry_id`	Yes	The entry's id, from get_split.
`description`	No
`split_between`	No	Names of the people sharing this cost, split equally. Defaults to everyone.

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

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (not read-only, not destructive), and the description adds real value beyond them: partial-update semantics ("Only the fields you pass are changed") and a browser-redirect behavior when the target is a secure split. Not mentioned: whether changes are reversible or what the response confirms.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the partial-update rule, then the id source, then the eligibility limit. No filler or repetition of schema content.

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?

Output schema and rich parameter docs are present, so the description only needs the constraints, which it supplies. The one residual gap is failure/reversibility behavior after a rejected or partial update.

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 89%, so the schema already defines all nine fields including the shares/split_between conflict. The description still earns credit by stating the cross-cutting partial-update rule and the provenance of entry_id, which no single parameter description conveys.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Change an existing expense or payment") and scopes the eligible resources (simple, accountless splits). It differentiates itself implicitly from add_expense/delete_entry/record_payment by being the mutation-in-place tool, but no sibling is named.

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 prerequisites ("Entry ids come from get_split"), explicit eligibility ("Works on simple, accountless splits"), and an explicit exclusion with the remedy ("Secure splits ... are read-only here and must be opened in a browser"). An agent knows exactly when this tool will and will not work.

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.