ynab-mcp

delete_transaction

Delete a transaction from a YNAB plan by supplying its transaction ID and plan ID, with optional control over excluded response fields.

Instructions

Delete a transaction.

Args: transaction_id: The transaction ID to delete plan_id: The plan ID (use list_plans to find available IDs) exclude_fields: Optional list of field names to exclude from the response. If omitted, the model's default exclude list is used (see FIELDS.md). Pass [] to return all fields. Pass a custom list to override the default.

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": {
      "transaction_id": "<transaction_id>",
      "plan_id": "<plan_id>"
    },
    "name": "delete_transaction"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`plan_id`	Yes
`exclude_fields`	No
`transaction_id`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 7, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full responsibility. It states deletion but does not disclose whether the action is destructive, irreversible, or requires specific permissions. Output schema exists but is not explained.

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 concise with a clear structure: purpose line followed by parameter explanations. Slightly verbose for exclude_fields but necessary for clarity.

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?

The description covers the action and parameters adequately but omits details about return value, side effects, or permanence of deletion. Output schema exists but is not referenced.

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

Parameters5/5

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

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates fully: transaction_id and plan_id are explained clearly, and exclude_fields is detailed with default behavior and override options.

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 explicitly states 'Delete a transaction,' clearly identifying the action and resource. This distinguishes it from siblings like create_transaction, update_transaction, and get_transaction.

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 deletion use case but does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It does not mention alternatives or preconditions like required permissions.

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

Deploy Server