PocketLedger MCP

Update transaction

update_transaction

Destructive

Update an existing transaction by ID, changing fields such as amount, currency, merchant, category, date, timezone, or note.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`date`	No
`note`	No	Optional short note to store with the transaction.
`amount`	No	Positive decimal amount encoded as a string. Must not include currency symbols or thousands separators.
`category`	No	Expense category name selected from list_categories when possible.
`currency`	No	ISO 4217 currency code, e.g. USD, EUR, GBP.
`merchant`	No	Merchant or payee name in plain text, preferably in English when the user asks to save in English.
`timezone`	No	IANA timezone used to interpret dates and relative words like today or yesterday, e.g. 'UTC'.
`subcategory`	No
`category_color`	No
`transaction_id`	Yes
`client_request_id`	No	Optional idempotency key. Omit for normal one-off calls.
`expected_updated_at`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

First observedJul 4, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true, so description's 'update' is consistent. But fails to explain optimistic concurrency via expected_updated_at, partial update behavior, or what happens if transaction_id not found.

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?

Single sentence, concise and front-loaded with verb and resource. Could be slightly more structured but acceptable.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given 12 parameters and output schema, description is too brief. Omits important details like partial update semantics, idempotency via client_request_id, and concurrency control.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Description lists several parameters (amount, currency, etc.) but doesn't explain their significance beyond the schema. 58% schema coverage means description adds some but limited value.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Clearly states the tool updates a transaction by ID and lists example fields. However, it doesn't explicitly state that any field from the schema can be updated, which is inferred but not fully clear.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like delete_transaction or log_transaction. Lacks context on prerequisites or scenarios.

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

All PocketLedger MCP tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Tools are mostly distinct with clear purposes. Potential confusion between get_report and get_summary or log_transaction and record_expense is mitigated by detailed descriptions explaining their specific use cases.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., delete_transaction, get_report, parse_expense_text), making the set predictable and easy to navigate.

Tool Count5/5

With 13 tools covering CRUD operations, account management, and utility functions, the count is well-scoped for a personal expense tracking server without being excessive.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface covers essential expense lifecycle operations (create, read, update, delete, restore) and account settings, though a direct get_transaction by ID or bulk operations are missing but not critical.

Resources

Need Help?