resolve_groupFind a Splitwise group ID by name using fuzzy matching. Returns matching groups with names and match scores to resolve the correct group ID.
Fuzzy-match a group by name. Returns matches with id, name, and match_score. Use this when you know a group name but not the group_id.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | ||
| threshold | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the operation is fuzzy matching and that results are scored, which is useful. However, it is silent on the threshold parameter behavior, handling of no matches, ordering, or determinism, leaving a notable gap in behavioral transparency.
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?
Three short sentences: what it does, what it returns, and when to use it—all front-loaded with no filler. Every sentence earns its place.
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 a simple lookup with an optional threshold, and the description covers the basic scenario (name → id). But the missing threshold semantics and lack of annotations leave the description incomplete for an agent that wants to control fuzzy-match strictness or anticipate edge cases. The output schema helps with return values but not invocation behavior.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It implicitly explains 'query' as the group name, but says nothing about 'threshold', its default, or how it affects matching. With one of two parameters completely unexplained, the semantic contribution is inadequate.
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?
Description uses a specific verb and resource ('fuzzy-match a group by name') and explicitly states the return shape ('matches with id, name, and match_score'). This clearly distinguishes it from exact lookups like get_group and sibling resolvers like resolve_friend or resolve_category, making its purpose unmistakable.
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?
'Use this when you know a group name but not the group_id' is an explicit condition that tells an agent when to invoke the tool. It implicitly suggests alternatives for when the group_id is known, but it does not explicitly name those alternatives (e.g., get_group), so guidance is good but not fully explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.