create_friendAdd a friend to your Splitwise account by entering their email address, with optional first and last name fields for easier identification.
Add a friend by email address. Optionally provide their first and last name.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| user_email | Yes | ||
| user_last_name | No | ||
| user_first_name | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic create action and does not mention side effects, permission requirements, duplicate handling, or what happens when the email address does not correspond to an existing user.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two short sentences with no filler. The core action and required parameter are front-loaded, and the optional parameters are stated in a single follow-up clause.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple, an output schema exists, and the description covers the required and optional parameters, so an agent can make a basic call. However, it lacks any note about duplicate handling, whether the friend must already be a platform user, or what response to expect, leaving the agent to discover these behaviors at runtime.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate, and it does name all three parameters: user_email is implied by 'by email address,' and user_first_name/user_last_name are referenced by 'optionally provide their first and last name.' However, it adds no format details, constraints, or clarification beyond the field names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Add') and resource ('a friend by email address'), making the operation unambiguous. It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like get_friends, delete_friend, and resolve_friend by stating the action is creation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like resolve_friend or get_friends. It states the mechanism (add by email) but provides no conditions, exclusions, or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.