ynab-mcp-server

updatePayee

Update a payee's name in your YNAB budget by specifying the plan ID, payee ID, and new name.

Instructions

Update a payee

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": {
      "plan_id": "<plan_id>",
      "payee_id": "<payee_id>",
      "payee": "<payee>"
    },
    "name": "updatePayee"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`plan_id`	Yes	The id of the plan. "last-used" can be used to specify the last used plan and "default" can be used if default plan selection is enabled (see: https://api.ynab.com/#oauth-default-plan).
`payee_id`	Yes	The id of the payee
`payee`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jun 13, 2026

TDQS

D1.1/5.0

Behavior1/5

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

With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits such as side effects or permissions, but it provides none. The verb 'Update' implies mutation, but no details on reversibility or required permissions are given.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness2/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely short, but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. It fails to provide any useful information, making it insufficient for a tool with complex input.

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

Completeness1/5

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

Given the lack of output schema and annotations, and the presence of nested parameters, the description is completely inadequate. It does not explain return values or behavior, leaving the agent with significant gaps.

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

Parameters1/5

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

The description adds no meaning beyond the input schema. While the schema covers parameters partially (67% description coverage), the description does not explain how to use the parameters or the structure of the nested 'payee' object.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose1/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'Update a payee' is a tautology, restating the tool name without specifying what aspects of a payee can be updated or how it differs from similar tools like createPayee.

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

Usage Guidelines1/5

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

No usage guidance is provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives like createPayee or updateCategory, leaving the agent with no context.

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

Deploy Server