Zovo Group Expenses

Change, delete from or close a ledger

update_expense_ledger

Destructive

Use this when the organizer wants to add members, delete expenses by their number (#3), rename the ledger, change the note, or close or reopen the page. Takes the private organizer link. Deleting removes the expense from all balances. Does not remove members who are already in expenses.

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": {
      "manage_link": "<manage_link>"
    },
    "name": "update_expense_ledger"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`note`	No	New note shown on the page; empty text removes it.
`title`	No	New title, e.g. Lisbon trip (final).
`status`	No	closed stops new expenses (balances stay visible); open allows them again.
`add_members`	No	New members to add, e.g. ["Eli"].
`manage_link`	Yes	The private organizer link returned when the ledger was created, e.g. https://group-expenses.zovo.one/m/AbC.../XyZ...
`delete_expenses`	No	Numbers of expenses or payments to delete, as shown on the page, e.g. [3].

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`rule`	Yes
`ended`	Yes
`title`	Yes
`total`	Yes
`closed`	Yes
`people`	Yes
`recent`	Yes
`changes`	No
`currency`	Yes
`settle_up`	Yes
`expires_at`	Yes
`manage_url`	Yes
`public_url`	Yes
`minor_digits`	Yes
`people_count`	No
`recent_count`	No
`expense_count`	Yes
`number_format`	No
`payment_count`	Yes
`settle_up_zeroes_all`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 8, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and non-idempotency, and the description reinforces this with concrete consequences: deletion removes the expense from all balances, and members already in expenses are not removed. Missing is guidance on combining multiple operations in one call and any confirmation/irreversibility warning.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The trigger condition is front-loaded, and each subsequent sentence covers a distinct operation or behavior. Slightly redundant phrasing ("delete expenses by their number (#3)" repeats the schema example) keeps it from a 5.

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?

With an output schema present and full parameter documentation, the description only needs to cover the operation set and destructive side effects, which it does. It could note whether the operations are applied atomically or whether the link's authority is required per-call, but nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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 the schema already documents every parameter, including the enum for status and the max lengths. The description only restates the surface operations and the "#3" numbering convention, adding little meaning beyond the schema's own examples.

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?

The description names concrete operations (add members, delete expenses by number, rename, change note, close/reopen) on a specific resource, so the agent knows exactly what the tool mutates. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from add_ledger_expenses, which is the closest sibling and could be confused with the member-adding capability.

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?

"Use this when the organizer wants to..." enumerates clear use triggers and implies the organizer/private-link context, which is useful selection guidance. It stops short of naming siblings or stating when not to use it (e.g. adding expenses vs adding members).

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

All Zovo Group Expenses 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.

Resources

Need Help?