Skip to main content
Glama

MoneyMatter

by io.github.letehaha
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

create_transaction_automation

Create a transaction automation rule that categorizes, tags, sets a payee, or edits the note of matching transactions. The rule is appended last in evaluation order and only fires for newly synced or imported bank transactions that are not transfers and not planned; existing transactions are never changed retroactively. Preview the conditions with preview_transaction_automation first. Requires finance:write scope.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesDisplay name of the rule (e.g. "Groceries to Food")
actionsYesActions applied when the conditions match. 1-4 actions, each type at most once. - { "type": "set_category", "categoryId": "<uuid>" } - { "type": "add_tags", "tagIds": ["<uuid>"] } with 1-20 tag ids - { "type": "set_payee", "payeeId": "<uuid>" } - { "type": "set_note", "mode": "replace" | "append" | "prepend", "value": "<text, max 200 chars>" } Every referenced category, tag, and payee must belong to the user, otherwise the call is rejected.
isEnabledNoDefaults to true
conditionsYesCondition tree: { match: "all" | "any", items: [...] }. 1-10 items, at most one transactionType item. Item shapes by field: - note | merchant (merchant is the bank-provided merchant/description text): { field, operator, value }. operator: contains_any | not_contains_any | starts_with_any | ends_with_any | equals_any | is_empty. value: 1-20 case-insensitive keywords, max 64 chars each; required unless operator is is_empty. Example: { "field": "merchant", "operator": "contains_any", "value": ["uber", "bolt"] } - payee | account | accountGroup | bankConnection: { field, operator, value }. operator: in | not_in. value: 1-20 UUIDs of that entity, all owned by the user. Example: { "field": "account", "operator": "in", "value": ["<accountId>"] } - amount: { field, operator, value: { min?, max? }, currency }. operator: gte | lte | between | equals. gte and equals take min only, lte takes max only, between takes both. Bounds are decimals (e.g. 12.50). currency: { "mode": "transaction" } compares in the currency of the transaction itself, { "mode": "base" } in the user base currency, { "mode": "specific", "code": "USD" } in a fixed currency. Example: { "field": "amount", "operator": "gte", "value": { "min": 100 }, "currency": { "mode": "base" } } - transactionType: { "field": "transactionType", "operator": "equals", "value": "income" | "expense" } - dayOfMonth: { "field": "dayOfMonth", "operator": "between", "value": { "min": 1, "max": 31 } }

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses evaluation order (appended last), firing scope (newly synced/imported bank transactions only), exclusions (not transfers, not planned), the non-retroactive guarantee, and the required finance:write scope. These are exactly the behavioral facts an agent needs before writing.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then scope, then the preview prerequisite and scope requirement in order of importance. Four compact sentences with minimal waste, though the action enumeration slightly overlaps the schema.

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 nested, multi-branch mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description supplies the critical behavioral context (firing scope, ordering, exclusions, auth scope) that structured fields don't cover. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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% and the nested action/condition schemas are exhaustively documented, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description's action list ('categorizes, tags, sets a payee, or edits the note') merely restates action types already in the schema, adding little beyond it; baseline 3 applies.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ('Create a transaction automation rule') and enumerates the four effects the rule can have (categorizes, tags, sets a payee, edits the note). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like update_transaction_automation and delete_transaction_automation without needing to open any schema.

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?

It explicitly routes the agent to preview_transaction_automation ('Preview the conditions ... first'), giving a concrete when-to-use instruction and a companion tool. It doesn't explicitly compare against update_transaction_automation for modifying an existing rule, so it falls short of full when/when-not coverage.

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

All MoneyMatter toolsInspect
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.

Resources