Beancount.io

Reconcile Linked Bank Accounts

reconcileBankAccounts

Destructive

Re-read which accounts a linked bank shares; accounts the bank no longer shares can be deleted along with their staged transactions. dry_run reports the changes without applying them.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`dryRun`	No	Alias of dry_run, as REST and GraphQL spell it.
`itemId`	No	The linked bank's id.
`ledger`	No	Target ledger as owner/name. Required for an unpinned credential; defaults to the credential's ledger restriction.
`dry_run`	No	Validate and report what would change, without changing anything.
`item_id`	No	Alias of itemId.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ok`	Yes
`error`	No
`result`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed4 schema fields changedOct 26, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / dryRun

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Alias of dry_run, as REST and GraphQL spell it.",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / itemId

Added value: +{
+  "description": "The linked bank's id.",
+  "type": "string"
+}

changedInput schema / properties / item_id / description

Previous value: -"The linked bank's id (item_id)."New value: +"Alias of itemId."

removedInput schema / required
```
Removed value: -[
-  "item_id"
-]
```

First observedOct 24, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, but the description adds genuinely new detail: exactly what is removed (no-longer-shared accounts plus their staged transactions) and that dry_run reports changes without applying them. It still omits whether the deletion is reversible and whether currently shared accounts are touched, which matters for a destructive operation.

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?

Two tight sentences with the effect stated first and the dry-run caveat second — front-loaded and free of filler. The second sentence partially duplicates the dry_run schema description, but it earns its place as the safety valve for a destructive call.

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

Completeness4/5

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

With an output schema present and rich destructive/openWorld annotations, the description needs only to convey the destructive scope and preview mode, which it does. The remaining gap is that no parameter is strictly required (required: 0), yet the description never signals what a call without itemId would reconcile.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so itemId, ledger, both dry-run spellings, and the item_id alias are all documented structurally; a baseline of 3 applies. The description restates only the dry_run behavior already present in the schema and says nothing about itemId selection or the ledger fallback to the credential's restriction.

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?

The description states a specific operation — re-reading which accounts a linked bank shares and deleting the ones no longer shared, along with their staged transactions. That is far more informative than the name alone and distinguishes it from pure listings like listBankConnections. It does not, however, explicitly contrast itself with nearby siblings such as refreshBankConnection, syncBankTransactions, or discardStagedBankTransactions.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The trigger condition is only implied: reconciliation matters when a bank stops sharing accounts, and dry_run is offered for a no-op preview. There is no explicit 'use this instead of X when Y' routing among the many bank/transaction siblings, leaving the agent to infer whether this or syncBankTransactions/discardStagedBankTransactions is the right call.

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

All Beancount.io tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.