Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
splitwise-mcp

splitwise-mcp

by chrischall
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

sw_undelete_expense

Destructive

Restore a soft-deleted Splitwise expense, then re-read it and return post_state {deleted_at, deleted_by, updated_at, updated_by}; if it is still (or again) deleted, the call fails naming who deleted it and when.

Instructions

Restore a soft-deleted Splitwise expense, then re-read it and return post_state {deleted_at, deleted_by, updated_at, updated_by}; if it is still (or again) deleted, the call fails naming who deleted it and when. This puts its charges back on every participant's balance and notifies them, so it is gated like the other writes. 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
idYesExpense ID to restore
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. Changed1 schema field changedv3.4.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / confirmToken
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "ONLY 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.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. 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"
  3. First observedv2.1.5

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses the re-read/verification step, the failure mode (still-deleted raises an error naming who deleted it and when), the side effects (charges reapplied to every participant's balance and notifications sent), and the confirmation gating with its MCP_CONFIRM_MODE fallback. This is exactly the destructive-write context an agent needs before calling.

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?

Front-loads the action and return shape, then side effects, then confirmation mechanics – a sensible ordering. It is dense and runs long, but nearly every clause carries decision-relevant information; only the confirmation sentence overlaps with the schema's confirmToken description.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description defines the return payload (post_state fields), the error condition, and the confirmation protocol. An agent can invoke this correctly without consulting anything else.

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 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds tool-level meaning by explaining that confirmToken comes from phase-1 and that a repeat call with identical arguments is what proceeds. That contextualizes the token's lifecycle slightly beyond the schema's own wording.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Restore a soft-deleted Splitwise expense') and immediately distinguishes itself from the destructive sibling by scope ('soft-deleted'). It also names the observable outcome (post_state with deleted_at/deleted_by), so the agent knows exactly what it gets back.

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?

Clear conditions for use: only for soft-deleted expenses, and only via the confirmation flow (client prompt or two-step preview+confirmToken). It does not explicitly name sw_delete_expense as the inverse or spell out when not to restore, but the context is unambiguous.

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