splitwise-mcp

by sarathfrancis90

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Local

whoami

Read-onlyIdempotent

Get the authenticated Splitwise account's profile to confirm which user is currently linked.

Instructions

Return the profile of the Splitwise account this server is authenticated as.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "whoami"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes	Splitwise's numeric id for this user.
`email`	No	User's email address, if visible to the caller.
`last_name`	No	User's family name, if set.
`first_name`	No	User's given name.
`picture_url`	No	URL of the user's profile photo, if any.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 1, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds minimal context by clarifying the operation targets the authenticated server account, but it does not disclose additional behavioral details such as authentication failure behavior or response shape.

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?

A single, grammatically complete sentence with no filler or redundancy. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's function.

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 tool's low complexity, zero parameters, strong safety annotations, and the presence of an output schema, the description is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke this tool correctly. No additional contextual information is necessary.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 per the rubric. The description correctly implies no inputs are needed, and there are no parameter semantics left unexplained.

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 uses a specific verb ('Return') and a clear resource ('the profile of the Splitwise account this server is authenticated as'). This unambiguously distinguishes it from sibling tools that target expenses, groups, or 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 clearly indicates the tool's purpose: retrieving the current authenticated account's profile. While it doesn't explicitly state exclusions or alternatives, none of the sibling tools serve this identity-focused role, so the usage context is clear without needing further guidance.

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

Deploy Server