Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
deenesjakoruzh
Monobank MCP Server

Monobank MCP Server

by Aler1x
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

Monobank MCP サーバー (Node.js/TypeScript)

Python で書かれた Monobank MCP Server の Node.js/TypeScript 実装です。

Monobank MCP サーバーは、あなたの Monobank 個人アカウント（および公開為替レート）を Model Context Protocol (MCP) ツールとして公開します。

このバージョンについて

これは @nklymok によるオリジナルの Python 実装を Node.js/TypeScript に移植したものです。

  • オリジナルの Python バージョン: https://github.com/nklymok/Monobank-MCP

  • この TypeScript バージョン: Node.js/TypeScript エコシステムの利点を活かしつつ、同じコアの個人アカウントツールを維持しています。さらに、トークン不要の公開レートツールも追加されています。

Related MCP server: Monobank MCP Server

機能

  • 公式の @modelcontextprotocol/sdk を使用した TypeScript/Node.js MCP サーバー

  • MCP ツール:

    • get_client_info – クライアントの識別情報、アカウント、ジャー（MONOBANK_API_TOKEN が必要）。

    • get_statement – 指定期間の取引明細（トークンが必要）。API を呼び出す前に期間を検証します。レスポンスの金額は主要単位で、取引日時は ISO 8601 UTC で返されます。

    • get_currency_rates – Monobank からの公開為替レート (GET /bank/currency)。API トークンは不要です。

使用方法 (公開パッケージ)

この MCP サーバーを使用する最も簡単な方法は、公開されている npm パッケージを使用することです。

  1. MCP 設定にサーバーを登録する

    {
  "mcpServers": {
    "monobank-mcp": {
      "command": "npx",
      "args": ["-y", "@alerix/monobank-mcp"],
      "env": {
        "MONOBANK_API_TOKEN": "your_token_here"
      }
    }
  }
}

    get_client_info または get_statement を使用する場合のみ MONOBANK_API_TOKEN を設定してください。get_currency_rates はトークンなしで動作します。

  2. MCP クライアントを実行する – 設定に応じてツールが利用可能になります。

開発

サーバーに貢献したり変更を加えたりしたい場合:

  1. クローンして依存関係をインストールする

    git clone https://github.com/aler1x/monobank-mcp.git
cd monobank-mcp
npm install

  2. サーバーを実行する（インストール後、prepare が npm run build を実行します）。個人用ツールを使用する場合は MONOBANK_API_TOKEN を設定してください。

    Windows (PowerShell):

    $env:MONOBANK_API_TOKEN="your_token_here"
node dist/index.js

    Windows (コマンドプロンプト):

    set MONOBANK_API_TOKEN=your_token_here
node dist\index.js

    macOS/Linux:

    export MONOBANK_API_TOKEN=your_token_here
node dist/index.js

    または1行で:

    MONOBANK_API_TOKEN=your_token_here node dist/index.js

  3. ホットリロードによる開発 (tsx --watch を使用):

    MONOBANK_API_TOKEN=your_token_here npm run dev

  4. ビルド (TypeScript → dist/):

    npm run build

ツールリファレンス

ツール

説明

トークン

レート制限 (Monobank)

get_client_info

クライアントのプロフィール、アカウントとジャーのリストを取得します。

はい

1リクエスト / 60秒

get_statement

アカウントと期間の取引を取得します。パラメータ: account_id (get_client_info から取得、またはデフォルトは '0')、from_timestamp (Unix秒)、オプションの to_timestamp (Unix秒; 省略時は「現在」)。from_timestamp から終了 (to_timestamp または現在) までの期間は 31日 + 1時間以内 である必要があります (APIの仕様に準拠)。金額は主要単位で返され、日時は ISO 8601 UTC で返されます。id、invoiceId、counterEdrpou、counterIban は省略されます。

はい

1リクエスト / 60秒

get_currency_rates

公開為替レート (ISO 4217 数値通貨コード)。Monobank の GET /bank/currency と同じデータです。

いいえ

Monobank 公開 API に準拠

API トークン

個人用ツールには Monobank の個人 API トークンが必要です。公式ドキュメントを参照してください: https://api.monobank.ua/index.html

環境変数

名前

必須

説明

MONOBANK_API_TOKEN

get_client_info および get_statement のみ

https://api.monobank.ua/index.html から取得した個人の Monobank API トークン。get_currency_rates では使用されません。

ライセンス

MIT

Available Tools

2 tools
get_client_infoA

Get client information from Monobank API. This tool retrieves information about the client, their accounts, and jars. It requires a Monobank API token with the necessary permissions.

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No parameters

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the authentication requirement (API token with permissions) which is valuable context, but doesn't describe what information is returned, whether there are rate limits, error conditions, or other behavioral traits. It adequately covers the basic operation but lacks detail about the tool's behavior.

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 appropriately concise with two sentences that each add value. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second adds important context about authentication requirements. There's no wasted text, though it could be slightly more structured.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given that this is a read operation with no parameters and no output schema, the description provides adequate but minimal information. It covers the purpose and authentication requirements, but doesn't describe what specific information is returned or the format of the response. For a tool that retrieves client information, more detail about the return data would be helpful.

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?

The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the parameter situation. The description doesn't need to add parameter information, and it appropriately doesn't discuss parameters. The baseline for 0 parameters with full schema coverage is 4.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get client information from Monobank API' with specific resources mentioned (client, accounts, jars). It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'get_statement' by focusing on client metadata rather than transaction data. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with the sibling, so it's not a perfect 5.

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 description provides some usage context by mentioning the required API token and permissions, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies usage for retrieving client metadata but doesn't provide guidance about when not to use it or what the sibling tool 'get_statement' is for.

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

get_statementA

Get account statement for a given period. Rate limit: 1 request per 60 seconds. Max period: 31 days + 1 hour. Rules: 1. Fetch from default account (account_id = '0') unless another account is specified. 2. Amounts are converted from the smallest currency unit (e.g., kopiyka, cent) to the main unit and returned as decimals. 3. Transaction timestamps ('time') are converted from Unix timestamps to ISO 8601 datetime strings (UTC). 4. Fields 'id', 'invoiceId', 'counterEdrpou', and 'counterIban' are omitted from the returned results.

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
account_idYesAccount identifier from the list of accounts, or '0' for default
from_timestampYesStart of the statement period (Unix timestamp)
to_timestampYesEnd of the statement period (Unix timestamp)

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes rate limits ('1 request per 60 seconds'), constraints ('Max period: 31 days + 1 hour'), data transformation rules (currency conversion, timestamp formatting), and output filtering (omitted fields), providing comprehensive behavioral context.

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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by rate limits, constraints, and specific rules in a numbered list format. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it easy to parse and understand.

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?

For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does an excellent job covering behavioral aspects, constraints, and data transformations. However, it doesn't explicitly describe the return format or structure of the statement data, which would be helpful given the lack of output schema.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters thoroughly. The description adds some context about default account behavior ('account_id = '0' unless another is specified') and timestamp usage, but doesn't provide significant additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema offers.

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 clearly states the specific action ('Get account statement') and resource ('for a given period'), distinguishing it from the sibling tool 'get_client_info' which presumably retrieves different information. It provides concrete details about what the tool does beyond just the name.

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 description implies usage by specifying a period requirement and default account behavior, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide any exclusion criteria. It offers some context but lacks explicit guidance on tool selection.

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

Tool Schema Changelog

Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. 2 tool updates
    • First observedget_client_info
    • First observedget_statement
Deploy Server
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

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Scored across 2 tools

Disambiguation5/5

The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: get_client_info retrieves client metadata, accounts, and jars, while get_statement fetches transaction data for a specific period. There is no overlap or ambiguity between these functions.

Naming Consistency5/5

Both tools follow a consistent verb_noun naming pattern (get_client_info, get_statement) with identical verb style and snake_case formatting, making them predictable and easy to understand.

Tool Count2/5

With only two tools, the server feels severely under-scoped for a banking API. Key operations like creating transactions, managing accounts, or updating client details are missing, limiting its utility for comprehensive financial tasks.

Completeness2/5

The toolset is highly incomplete for a banking domain. It only supports read operations (get_client_info, get_statement) with no ability to perform writes (e.g., transfers, payments), updates, or deletions, leaving significant gaps in typical banking workflows.

Maintenance

ActivityInactive
ResponsivenessNo issues

Resources

Related MCP Connectors

Related MCP Servers

  • Monobank MCP Server

    akutishevsky
    A
    license
    A
    quality
    B
    maintenance
    Enables integration with Monobank API to check currency exchange rates, view account balances, and retrieve transaction statements through natural language queries.
    3
    85 npm
    11
    MIT

  • Monobank MCP Server

    nklymok
    F
    license
    Not graded
    quality
    D
    maintenance
    Exposes Monobank personal account data through MCP tools, allowing users to fetch client info, accounts, and jars. It also enables retrieving account statements for specific time periods.
    -

  • Mono-MCP

    clar1k
    A
    license
    Not graded
    quality
    D
    maintenance
    An MCP server that enables AI assistants to retrieve and format Monobank account statements and transactions by date range.
    2 npm
    5
    MIT

  • Monarch Money MCP Server

    mjstramel
    A
    license
    C
    quality
    D
    maintenance
    Enables interaction with Monarch Money data via MCP tools for accounts, budgets, and transactions.
    6
    97 npm
    4
    MIT