Skip to main content
Glama
chrischall

splitwise-mcp

by chrischall
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

sw_batch

Destructive

Several Splitwise writes in one go, e.g. create an expense, then sw_create_comment / sw_attach_receipt on it with refs {"expense_id": "0.expense_id"}.

Instructions

Several Splitwise writes in one go, e.g. create an expense, then sw_create_comment / sw_attach_receipt on it with refs {"expense_id": "0.expense_id"}. Run several writes with ONE preview and ONE approval, in order, stopping at the first failure (no rollback: the result says which ops were applied). Each op is {tool, args, refs?}; args are exactly what that tool takes (without confirmToken). refs feeds an earlier op's output into an argument, e.g. {"tool": "…", "args": {…}, "refs": {"expense_id": "0.expense_id"}} takes expense_id from op 0. Writes available: sw_create_expense (produces expense_id), sw_update_expense, sw_attach_receipt, sw_delete_expense, sw_undelete_expense, sw_create_comment, sw_delete_comment. Asks the user to confirm first: a confirmation prompt where the client supports one; otherwise the first call returns a preview and a confirmToken, and only a repeat call with that token proceeds (see MCP_CONFIRM_MODE).

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
opsYes
confirmTokenNoONLY for the two-step confirmation fallback (a client without MCP elicitation). The confirmToken from this same tool's phase-1 "confirmation-required" response, passed back ONLY after the user has seen that preview and explicitly approved it in chat — never on the first call, never invented, never reused. Call again with the same arguments. Ignored when the client supports elicitation.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv3.5.1

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses ordering, fail-fast behavior, lack of rollback, the fact that the result identifies applied operations, and the confirmation/confirmToken flow including the elicitation fallback. This is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs for a destructive, non-idempotent batch operation.

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 description is front-loaded with the core purpose and the critical fail-fast/no-rollback constraint. It is slightly repetitive, especially the refs example appearing twice, but the length is largely justified by the complexity of the batch and confirmation model.

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?

Given the absence of an output schema and the complexity of a multi-operation destructive tool, the description covers the essential contract: op shape, ref chaining, execution order, failure semantics, available writes, and confirmation behavior. An agent can invoke it correctly without needing additional undocumented context.

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

Parameters5/5

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

It explains the nested ops structure in detail: each op has tool, args, and optional refs; args mirror the target tool without confirmToken; refs resolve from earlier op outputs with a concrete example. It also clarifies confirmToken semantics, including when not to use it and how it interacts with MCP_CONFIRM_MODE.

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 states a specific verb and resource: batching several Splitwise writes into one ordered run. It distinguishes the tool from individual sibling writes by explaining the shared preview/approval flow and listing the write tools it can batch.

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?

Usage is clear: use it to run several writes with one preview and one approval, stopping at the first failure. The description does not explicitly say when to prefer a single sibling write tool instead, so it stops short of full when/when-not/alternative guidance.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools