Splitwise MCP Server

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v0.1.2
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: authentication setup, login, adding/deleting expenses, listing friends, and text/voice command processing. No overlapping functionality.
Naming Consistency4/5
Most tools follow a verb_noun pattern (add_expense, delete_expense, list_friends), but login_with_token and configure_splitwise are slightly different, and text_command/voice_command are adjective_noun. Minor inconsistency but still readable.
Tool Count5/5
Seven tools cover essential Splitwise actions like authentication (configure, login), expense management (add, delete), friend listing, and natural language interfaces, which is well-scoped for the server's purpose.
Completeness2/5
Notable missing operations: no update or get/list expenses (only add/delete), no group management beyond expense addition, and no tool to retrieve expense details. The command tools may partially compensate but lack explicit coverage.
Average 3.8/5 across 7 of 7 tools scored. Lowest: 3.2/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits like whether deletion is permanent, requires authentication, or has side effects. The burden falls entirely on the description.
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?
One sentence, no fluff. The description is front-loaded and concise, fitting for a simple tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one required param, output schema present), the description is minimally complete. However, it lacks behavioral details and usage context, leaving gaps for an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The single parameter 'expense_id' has no schema description (0% coverage), and the description adds no extra meaning beyond 'by its ID'. No format, example, or constraints are provided.
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 the action (delete) and resource (expense), specifying deletion by ID. It effectively distinguishes from siblings like 'add_expense'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as other expense management tools. Lacks context like prerequisites or scenarios where deletion is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states the action but does not disclose important behaviors such as whether it replaces an existing session, validates the token, or any side effects. The return value is also not mentioned despite an existing output schema.
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 two sentences, no extraneous words, and front-loads the action in the first sentence. Every part is useful.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple with one parameter and no nested objects. An output schema exists, so return details are not needed. However, the description lacks prerequisites (e.g., token must be valid, from an external OAuth provider) and what happens post-login. It is adequate but not fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, and the description only mentions 'existing OAuth2 Access Token' without explaining parameter details like format, source, or constraints. It adds minimal value beyond the schema.
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 the tool logs in using an existing OAuth2 Access Token, and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools (no other authentication tools) by specifying a use case for external integrations.
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?
The description explicitly advises when to use the tool ('integrations where authentication is handled externally, e.g., ChatGPT'), providing clear context. However, it does not mention when not to use or suggest alternatives, but siblings do not include other auth tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'configure' implies a mutation, the description fails to specify whether credentials are validated, persisted, or if reconfiguration overwrites previous settings. This lack of detail leaves the agent uncertain about side effects.
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 extremely concise, consisting of two short sentences. The critical constraint is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second sentence adds essential usage guidance. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is adequate for a simple configuration tool but lacks information about whether this step is a prerequisite for other tools, or what the output schema contains. Since an output schema exists, the description could note that a confirmation or status is returned. More context would make it complete.
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?
With schema description coverage at 0%, the description adds value by explaining the OR relationship between parameters. However, it does not explain the format or purpose of each parameter beyond their titles. For a configuration tool, more detail (e.g., where to obtain these) would improve semantics.
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 the tool's purpose: 'Configure the Splitwise client with API credentials.' The verb 'configure' and noun 'Splitwise client' are specific, and the tool is distinctly different from siblings like 'add_expense' or 'list_friends', which handle data operations.
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?
The description provides explicit instructions on required inputs: 'You must provide either (consumer_key AND consumer_secret) OR api_key.' This clarifies the parameter dependency. However, it does not mention when to use the tool versus alternatives, though siblings are unrelated to configuration, so this is minor.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the high-level process (transcription, intent, execution) and possible returns (confirmation, clarification, error). However, it does not detail potential side effects like data modification or required permissions.
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 purpose and efficiently explains the process. Minor redundancy (first sentence then restates) but overall well-structured and concise.
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?
Despite complexity (voice pipeline with external services), the description covers the process, input, and return types. Mentions Deepgram and Gemini. Lacks details on audio size limits or latency, but still fairly complete given output schema exists.
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?
The schema has only one parameter (audio_base64) with no description. The description adds meaning by specifying format constraints (WAV or MP3) and encoding. Given 0% schema coverage, the description compensates well.
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 that the tool processes voice commands for Splitwise by accepting base64 audio, transcribing it, processing intent, and executing actions. It distinguishes itself from siblings like text_command by explicitly focusing on voice input.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as text_command. The description does not mention prerequisites, when voice is appropriate, or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses return type as 'formatted string list' but no further details on formatting or behavior. No annotations to supplement, so adequate but minimal.
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?
Two concise sentences, no wasted words, front-loaded with purpose.
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?
Sufficient for a simple parameterless tool with output schema noted. Could mention empty list handling but not critical.
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?
No parameters; schema coverage 100%. Description adds no param info but not required.
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?
Clearly states the verb 'List', resource 'friends', and scope 'of the current user'. Distinguishes from siblings which are expense and configuration tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. Missing context for tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears full burden. It discloses core functionality and split options but omits details on error handling, permissions, or side effects. The examples for split_map are helpful but do not cover all potential issues.
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 well-organized with an Args section and examples. It is concise yet informative, though the verbose Example formatting could be slightly more compact.
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?
Given the number of parameters (7) and no annotations, the description covers most parameters and their relationships. The presence of an output schema likely covers return values. Minor gaps include lack of error scenarios and ordering constraints.
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?
With 0% schema coverage, the description compensates well: it explains amount as 'total cost', description as 'brief description', and provides explicit examples for split_map. However, some parameters like exclude_names lack contextual detail about how they interact with group splits.
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 the tool's action: 'Add an expense to Splitwise', and highlights key features like unequal splits and groups. It distinguishes itself from siblings like delete_expense and list_friends.
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?
The description includes parameter explanations and usage notes (e.g., friend_names can be empty if using group_name, split_map examples). It lacks explicit comparison to alternative tools but provides sufficient context for correct invocation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool 'executes Splitwise actions' and returns results, implying mutation, but it does not specify authentication requirements, side effects, or the scope of actions possible. This is adequate but not fully transparent.
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 extremely concise with only three sentences plus Args/Returns, every sentence adds value. The key purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the structure is clean and efficient.
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?
Given the tool's complexity as a natural language command processor and the presence of an output schema, the description covers input and output adequately. It provides a clear example and distinguishes from audio input. However, it could mention the AI model (Gemini) and the range of possible actions for completeness.
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?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by describing the 'text' parameter as a 'Natural language command' with a concrete example ('Split 50 with Sumeet for dinner'), which helps the agent understand usage. However, it could provide more format guidance.
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 the tool processes text commands for Splitwise by interpreting natural language and executing actions. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling 'voice_command' by noting this version is for text input instead of audio, making the purpose unambiguous.
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?
The description gives explicit context for when to use this tool ('when you already have text instead of audio'), which differentiates it from the sibling 'voice_command'. However, it does not mention when not to use it or provide guidance on alternatives among other siblings for specific tasks, missing some depth.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![the-splitwise-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/hubshashwat/the-splitwise-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/hubshashwat/the-splitwise-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![the-splitwise-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/hubshashwat/the-splitwise-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/hubshashwat/the-splitwise-mcp)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/hubshashwat/the-splitwise-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server