Skip to main content
Glama
chrischall

splitwise-mcp

by chrischall
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

sw_get_comments

Read-only

Fetches every comment on a Splitwise expense when given its expense ID, returning the complete thread for review.

Instructions

Get all comments on a Splitwise expense.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
viewNoResponse shape: "compact" (default) drops fields the response already carries elsewhere; "full" returns every field this server understands. compact drops the avatar URLs; "full" returns Splitwise's whole record.
expense_idYesExpense ID to get comments for

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv3.0.0
    • changedInput schema / $schema
      Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"
  2. Changed1 schema field changedv2.4.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / view
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Response shape: \"compact\" (default) drops fields the response already carries elsewhere; \"full\" returns every field this server understands. compact drops the avatar URLs; \"full\" returns Splitwise's whole record.",
+  "enum": [
+    "compact",
+    "full"
+  ],
+  "type": "string"
+}
  3. First observedv2.1.5

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description's minimal additional context (that it returns all comments for an expense) is acceptable. It does not disclose potential limits or edge cases (e.g., what happens with no comments, pagination), but for a read-only getter this is not critical. No contradictions with annotations.

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?

The description is a single, concise sentence that immediately states the tool's purpose. No wasted words, and it is front-loaded with the action and resource. Perfectly sized.

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?

For a simple read-only getter with two parameters (one required), no output schema, and readOnlyHint annotation, the description is fully adequate. It states the purpose and the schema covers the rest. An agent can confidently invoke this tool with just the expense_id.

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 description coverage is 100%, and the schema already provides detailed descriptions for both expense_id and view (including the compact/full semantics). The tool description adds nothing about parameters beyond what the schema covers, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 'Get all comments on a Splitwise expense' clearly states the verb (Get), the resource (comments), and the scope (on a specific expense). It unambiguously distinguishes this from sibling tools like create_comment and delete_comment, and from expense/group getters. No ambiguity.

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?

While the description does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, the context is clear: it is the only tool for retrieving comments on an expense. The purpose inherently defines its usage, and there are no competing getters for comments. This meets the 'clear context, no exclusions' bar.

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