Skip to main content
Glama

Hundo

propose_transaction

Destructive

Propose a new income or expense transaction. Returns a proposal id; to record it, call the confirm_proposal tool with the returned proposalId after the user approves (there is no UI button or proposal card to click in this context). Validate account exists and is owned by the user before calling.

MCP note: this tool only CREATES a pending proposal; nothing is recorded until confirm_proposal is called.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dateYesYYYY-MM-DD.
typeYes
amountYesAmount in MAJOR units (the displayed amount, e.g. 12.34 for $12.34, 50000 for Rp 50,000). The server scales to storage units; never pre-multiply by 100.
currencyYes3-letter currency code. May differ from the account's currency; the server records an exchange rate to convert into the account currency.
accountIdNoId of the financial account. Omit only in the email-import pipeline when the source email is genuinely ambiguous about which account paid — the user will pick one via the proposal card's Edit button. In chat, always pass a real id (ask the user instead of guessing). Do not pass an empty string; omit the field entirely instead.
categoryIdNo
envelopeIdNo
descriptionYes
exchangeRateNoRate to convert the amount into the account's currency, used only when currency differs from the account. Usually omit — the server auto-fetches the rate as of the date.
editsProposalIdNoId of an existing pending proposal to update in place. Pass this when the user asks to modify a proposal you previously made (e.g. 'make it $50 instead'). Look up current ids with listPendingProposals if you're unsure. Omit when proposing something new.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description clarifies that this only creates a pending proposal and nothing is recorded until confirm_proposal is called, adding critical behavioral context beyond the annotations. It also warns about account validation requirements, making side effects and prerequisites explicit.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is dense yet concise, front-loading the purpose and workflow, then addressing parameter nuances. Every sentence adds value, with no fluff or repetition of schema details.

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?

Given 10 parameters, no output schema, and a multi-step workflow, the description covers all critical aspects: the follow-up confirm_proposal step, account validation, parameter semantics, and alternatives. It is sufficient for an agent to invoke correctly without further clarification.

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

Parameters5/5

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

With only 60% schema coverage, the description adds essential meaning for amount (major units, no pre-multiplication), currency (exchange rate handling), accountId (when to omit vs pass real id), exchangeRate (usually omit), and editsProposalId (when to use). This compensates well for schema gaps.

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 description states a specific action ('Propose a new income or expense transaction') with a clear resource and distinguishes it from siblings like propose_transfer and propose_transaction_edit. It also notes it returns a proposal id, which clarifies the tool's role in the proposal workflow.

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?

It explicitly instructs to call confirm_proposal after approval, names the alternative for editing (editsProposalId), and gives preconditions like validating account ownership. It also provides context-specific guidance for chat vs email-import, leaving no ambiguity about when to use this tool.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources