Beancount.io

Rename Account

renameAccount

Destructive

Rename an account and every account under it across the ledger's loaded files in one commit: account tokens outside strings and comments, whole names only. Bank mappings move with it. Refused for an invalid name, another root, or a name the ledger already uses; new bean-check errors refuse the commit unless allowInvalid. Pinned credentials can omit ledger. dry_run previews without committing: the changed lines and bank mappings. revertCommit undoes the commit.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "from": "<from>",
      "to": "<to>"
    },
    "name": "renameAccount"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`to`	Yes	The new name; it must stay under the same root.
`from`	Yes	The account to rename; every account under it is renamed too.
`dryRun`	No	Alias of dry_run, as REST and GraphQL spell it.
`ledger`	No	Ledger as owner/name; see the server instructions.
`dry_run`	No	Run every check and return the preview without committing
`allowInvalid`	No	Commit even when the rename adds bean-check errors the ledger did not have.
`allow_invalid`	No	Alias of allowInvalid.

Output Schema

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

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 14, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description discloses concrete behavior: the rename covers every child account, moves bank mappings, only touches account tokens outside strings and comments, and refuses on invalid names, root changes, existing names, or new bean-check errors unless allowInvalid is set. It also explains that dry_run previews changed lines and bank mappings and that revertCommit undoes the commit.

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?

The description is front-loaded and every sentence carries operational information. It is dense and somewhat long, but it avoids filler and keeps the most important scope and failure conditions early.

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?

For a destructive multi-file mutation with an output schema available, the description covers the essential behavior: scope, commit model, refusals, bypass flag, preview mode, credential handling, and undo path. Nothing critical for correct invocation is missing.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains each parameter. The description still adds meaningful semantics: allowInvalid controls whether new bean-check errors block the commit, dry_run returns a preview of changed lines and bank mappings, and pinned credentials can omit ledger.

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 verb and resource: rename an account and every child account across the ledger's loaded files in one commit. It also scopes the operation to account tokens outside strings and comments and whole names only, which distinguishes it from broader file-edit or ledger-renaming siblings.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description gives clear usage context: invalid names, another root, or an already-used name are refused, and dry_run previews without committing. It also names revertCommit as the undo path. It does not explicitly compare this tool to renameLedgerFile, but the account-scoped behavior is clear enough to route correctly.

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.