Skip to main content
Glama
trustxai

amazing-splitwise-mcp

by trustxai

splitwise_get_expense

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve full details for one expense: cost, group, category, each person's paid/owed/net shares, repayments, and comments. Use before updating or to verify the result.

Instructions

Read one expense in full: cost, group, category, every share, repayments and comments.

Calls GET /get_expense/{id}. The shares table shows what each person paid, owed and their net on this expense; repayments say who owes whom for it; comments are listed with author and time. A deleted expense is still readable and is flagged as deleted.

Sign convention: Net = paid − owed; positive = that person is owed money on this expense, negative = they owe.

When to Use:

  • Before splitwise_update_expense, to see the current shares (an update with shares replaces ALL of them).

  • "Who paid for dinner and how was it split?"

  • Checking that a create/update landed the way it was intended.

When NOT to Use:

  • To list or search expenses (use splitwise_get_expenses).

  • To read only the comments thread (use splitwise_get_comments).

  • For overall balances (use splitwise_get_balances).

Returns: Markdown: header fields, a | Person | Paid | Owed | Net | table, repayments From → To amount, and a comments table. JSON: the raw expense object.

Examples:

  • params = {"expense_id": 3456789012}

  • params = {"expense_id": 3456789012, "response_format": "json"}

Error Handling: 404 → wrong id; 403 → you are not part of that expense; 401 → API key problem.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
paramsYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes well beyond that by disclosing the sign convention (Net = paid − owed), the fact that a deleted expense remains readable and is flagged, the concrete return shape (shares table, From → To repayments, comments), and status-code semantics (404 wrong id, 403 not a participant, 401 key problem).

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?

Headers (When to Use / When NOT to Use / Returns / Examples / Error Handling) make it scannable and the purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence. It is on the long side and the 'Returns' block partially duplicates the existing output schema, but nothing is truly wasted.

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 single-parameter read tool this is complete: purpose, routing, output shape, examples and error mapping are all present. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly and interpret common failure modes without further inference.

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?

Top-level schema description coverage is reported at 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it clarifies expense_id provenance ('from splitwise_get_expenses'), contrasts markdown vs raw JSON, and supplies two concrete param examples. It stops short of documenting edge cases like id format or the exclusiveMinimum constraint, so not a full 5.

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 opening line states a specific verb and resource ('Read one expense in full') and enumerates the scope: cost, group, category, shares, repayments, comments. It is immediately distinguishable from splitwise_get_expenses (list/search) and splitwise_get_comments (thread only), which are named explicitly.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Provides explicit 'When to Use' triggers (pre-update inspection, 'who paid for dinner', post-create verification) and a 'When NOT to Use' block that routes to splitwise_get_expenses, splitwise_get_comments and splitwise_get_balances. This is the strongest possible form of routing guidance.

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