Skip to main content
Glama
chrischall

splitwise-mcp

by chrischall
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

sw_get_expense

Read-only

Fetch complete details of a single Splitwise expense by ID, including share breakdown, repayments, and receipt status. Use it to inspect or verify specific expense records.

Instructions

Get full details of a single Splitwise expense by id.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesExpense ID
viewNoResponse shape: "compact" (default) drops fields the response already carries elsewhere; "full" returns every field this server understands. compact keeps the share breakdown, repayments and receipt presence and drops the avatars and the repeat/reminder/transaction block; "full" returns Splitwise's whole records.

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 keeps the share breakdown, repayments and receipt presence and drops the avatars and the repeat/reminder/transaction block; \"full\" returns Splitwise's whole records.",
+  "enum": [
+    "compact",
+    "full"
+  ],
+  "type": "string"
+}
  3. First observedv2.1.5

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes that this is a safe read operation. The description adds that it returns 'full details' of the specified expense, but it does not disclose other behavioral aspects such as authentication requirements, error behavior, or whether the default response is actually compact rather than full.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It conveys the essential purpose and resource immediately.

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 low-complexity, read-only tool with well-documented parameters, the description is nearly complete. It lacks an explicit statement of return shape or an alternative reference, but the phrase 'full details' and the view parameter documentation give an agent enough context to invoke it correctly.

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 both the id and view parameters are already well documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond reinforcing the need for an expense ID, so it stays at the baseline.

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 clearly states a specific verb ('Get'), a specific resource ('a single Splitwise expense'), and the mechanism ('by id'). It distinguishes itself from list, create, update, and delete expense siblings by emphasizing detail retrieval for one expense.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies the tool should be used when an agent has an expense ID and needs full details for a single expense. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives like sw_list_expenses for fetching multiple expenses or sw_update_expense for modifications, leaving usage selection mostly to inference.

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