Skip to main content
Glama
trustxai

amazing-splitwise-mcp

by trustxai

splitwise_remove_user_from_group

DestructiveIdempotent

Remove a member from a Splitwise group by group ID and user ID once balances are settled; if the member still owes or is owed, settle up first because the request is rejected.

Instructions

Remove a member from a group. 🔒 destructive write.

Calls POST /remove_user_from_group with group_id and user_id. Splitwise refuses when the member has a non-zero balance in the group (settle up first) — and it does so with HTTP 200 + success: false, which the client turns into an error. The member is reported as removed only when the body says success: true. Refused with Error: … writes are disabled unless SPLITWISE_ALLOW_WRITES=1. Undo: splitwise_add_user_to_group with the same ids.

When to Use:

  • To drop someone (or yourself) from a group whose balances are settled.

When NOT to Use:

  • To delete the whole group (use splitwise_delete_group).

  • To check balances first (use splitwise_get_group).

  • With a group NAME — resolve it to an id first (use splitwise_resolve_group).

Returns: A confirmation with the success / errors values Splitwise returned — or, when the body does not say success: true, a note to verify before reporting it as removed.

Examples:

  • params = {"group_id": 12345, "user_id": 5823}

Error Handling: A non-zero balance (or any refusal) → Error: Splitwise rejected the request ... with Splitwise's message; 403 → you are not a member of the group.

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 destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description goes far beyond them: the HTTP 200 + success:false quirk, the SPLITWISE_ALLOW_WRITES=1 gate, the refusal on non-zero balance, the 403 meaning, and the exact undo call. This is unusually rich behavioral disclosure for a mutation tool.

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-loaded with a one-line purpose and emoji-flagged destructiveness, then sectioned into scannable blocks. It is long for a two-parameter tool, but every section (guard railing, returns, error handling) carries information an agent needs, so little is 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?

Covers the destructive/auth prerequisites, the ambiguous-success failure mode, the undo path, and error mapping, so nothing needed to invoke or interpret the call is missing. An output schema exists, yet the extra success/errors interpretation guidance still adds value.

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's nested properties do carry short descriptions, but the description reinforces them with a concrete example ({"group_id": 12345, "user_id": 5823}) and adds the rule that a group NAME must first be resolved via splitwise_resolve_group. That name-to-id guidance is meaningfully 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Remove a member from a group') and immediately distinguishes it from siblings like splitwise_delete_group and splitwise_add_user_to_group. An agent can identify the tool's scope without opening the schema.

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?

Explicit 'When to Use' and 'When NOT to Use' sections name three alternatives (delete_group, get_group, resolve_group) plus the balance-settled precondition. Routing decisions are fully enumerated rather than left to inference.

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