Skip to main content
Glama

update_transaction_automation

Update a transaction automation rule. Only provided fields change; conditions and actions are replaced wholesale, not merged. Setting isEnabled to true or changing conditions/actions re-validates every referenced category, tag, payee, and account and clears pausedReason, so this is how a rule paused by a deleted reference is repaired. Position is not changed here, use reorder_transaction_automations. Requires finance:write scope.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesUUID of the automation
nameNoNew display name
actionsNoActions 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.
isEnabledNoEnable or disable the rule
conditionsNoCondition 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

A4.9/5.0
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: partial-update semantics ('only provided fields change'), the destructive replace-not-merge behavior on conditions/actions, the side effect of re-validating references and clearing pausedReason, and the auth requirement. These are exactly the traits an agent needs before mutating nested rule data.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with the update semantics and side effects, then the exclusion and the required scope. No filler or restatement of the tool name.

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 no-annotation mutation tool with deeply nested schemas and no output schema, the description supplies the missing behavioral context: merge behavior, re-validation side effects, pause-repair use case, scope, and the sibling for reordering. Nothing essential to correct invocation is absent.

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 baseline is 3; the description still adds value by clarifying merge vs replace semantics for conditions/actions, which the schema does not state. It does not, however, expand on id, name, or isEnabled beyond what the schema already documents.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ('Update a transaction automation rule') and immediately names the sibling it is not for position changes (reorder_transaction_automations). An agent can distinguish it from the create/delete/reorder siblings without opening a schema.

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?

Explicitly states when to use it ('this is how a rule paused by a deleted reference is repaired') and when not to ('Position is not changed here, use reorder_transaction_automations'), plus the required finance:write scope. Both an alternative and a triggering condition are given.

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.