You Need A Budget (YNAB) MCP

by Jtewen

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

Python

Remote

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have distinct purposes, such as list-accounts for accounts and list-categories for categories, but some overlap exists. For example, manage-financial-overview provides high-level context that might be partially covered by get-month-info for monthly details, which could cause minor confusion in tool selection. However, descriptions clarify their specific uses, reducing ambiguity.
Naming Consistency5/5
Tool names follow a highly consistent verb-noun pattern with hyphenation, such as list-accounts, get-month-info, and manage-budgeted-amount. All tools adhere to this convention, making them predictable and easy to understand. There are no deviations or mixed styles like camelCase or snake_case.
Tool Count5/5
With 14 tools, the set is well-scoped for budget management, covering key operations like listing resources, managing transactions, and handling budgets. Each tool serves a clear purpose, such as list-transactions for analysis and manage-scheduled-transaction for recurring bills, without being excessive or too sparse for the domain.
Completeness5/5
The tool surface provides comprehensive coverage for YNAB's budget management domain, including CRUD operations for transactions, budgets, and payees, along with utilities like lookup-entity-by-id. It supports core workflows from listing resources to managing financial data, with no obvious gaps that would hinder agent performance.
Average 3.4/5 across 14 of 14 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- 0 of 3 community issues answered or closed in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on June 19, 2025
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool performs create/update/delete operations, implying mutations, but doesn't cover critical aspects like permissions required, whether changes are reversible, error handling for partial failures, rate limits, or what the response looks like (since no output schema exists). For a bulk mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
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 extremely concise and front-loaded: two sentences that directly state the tool's purpose and key benefit ('more efficient than making single changes'). Every word earns its place with zero waste, making it easy to scan and understand quickly. No unnecessary details or redundancy are present.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (bulk mutations with multiple actions), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral risks (e.g., data loss from deletes), response format, error scenarios, or integration with sibling tools (e.g., 'list-transactions' for verification). For a powerful mutation tool, more context is needed to ensure safe and effective use by an AI agent.
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%, with detailed parameter descriptions in the input schema (e.g., 'action' as the action to perform, 'create_transactions' required for 'create' action). The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining how actions map to parameters or providing usage examples. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema does the heavy lifting.
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: 'Create, update, or delete multiple transactions at once.' It specifies the verb ('create, update, or delete') and resource ('transactions'), and distinguishes it from single operations by noting it's 'more efficient than making single changes.' However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list-transactions' or 'manage-scheduled-transaction,' which keeps it from a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides minimal guidance: it mentions efficiency over single changes, implying this tool should be used for bulk operations. However, it lacks explicit when-to-use criteria, prerequisites (e.g., budget context), or alternatives (e.g., when to use 'list-transactions' for reading vs. this for writing). No exclusions or detailed context are provided, making it insufficient for clear decision-making.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'look up' which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether it returns all locations or filtered results, pagination, error handling, or authentication needs. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.
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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. It earns its place by clearly stating the tool's function in a compact form, making it easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., list of locations, details), behavioral constraints, or how parameters interact, leaving gaps for a tool with 3 parameters and multiple sibling tools.
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%, with clear documentation for all three parameters (budget_id, location_id, payee_id). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage without compensating value.
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 action ('look up') and resource ('geographic locations associated with a payee'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'list-payees' or 'lookup-entity-by-id', which might also involve payee-related operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'list-payees' and 'lookup-entity-by-id', it's unclear if this tool is for specific location queries, bulk operations, or other contexts, leaving the agent without usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While it mentions the two actions (assign and move), it doesn't describe what happens during these operations - whether they're reversible, what permissions are required, how errors are handled, or what the typical response looks like. For a mutation tool with financial implications, this is a significant gap.
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 efficiently convey the core functionality. The first sentence states what the tool does, and the second positions it as the primary allocation tool. There's no wasted language, though it could benefit from more structured guidance.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with financial operations and no annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address important behavioral aspects like error conditions, side effects, or response format. Given the complexity of budget management and the lack of structured safety information, the description should provide more operational context.
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%, so the schema already documents all 6 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond what's in the schema - it mentions 'category' and 'specific month' which map to parameters, but doesn't provide additional context about parameter relationships or usage patterns. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.
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 with specific verbs ('assign', 'move') and resources ('budgeted amount', 'category', 'specific month'). It distinguishes this as the 'primary tool for allocating funds', which helps position it within the budgeting domain. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'manage-financial-overview' or 'list-budgets'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides minimal usage guidance - only stating this is the 'primary tool for allocating funds'. It doesn't specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'manage-financial-overview' or 'list-budgets', nor does it mention any prerequisites, constraints, or typical scenarios for using this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While it mentions the investigation purpose, it doesn't describe key behavioral traits: whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, how results are returned (pagination, format), rate limits, or error conditions. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the basic purpose.
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. The first sentence states the core functionality, and the second provides usage context. Both sentences earn their place, though the second could be more specific. No wasted words or redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (5 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (transaction format, structure), how results are limited or paginated, or error handling. For a list operation with multiple filtering parameters and no output schema, more complete context is needed.
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%, so the schema already fully documents all 5 parameters. The description mentions 'specific account or an entire month' which aligns with 'account_id' and 'month' parameters, but adds no additional semantic context beyond what's in the schema. With complete schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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: 'List transactions for a specific account or an entire month.' It uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('transactions'), and provides scope details (account-specific or month-wide). However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like 'list-scheduled-transactions' or 'bulk-manage-transactions' beyond the investigation context.
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: 'Use this to investigate spending patterns identified in the financial overview.' This implies when to use the tool (for investigation after reviewing financial overview), but doesn't offer explicit guidance on when to choose this tool versus alternatives like 'list-scheduled-transactions' or 'get-month-info'. No exclusions or clear alternatives are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('List all available') but doesn't describe return format, pagination, sorting, error conditions, or authentication requirements. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple list operation and front-loads the essential information. Every word earns its place.
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 the tool's simplicity (zero parameters, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate but lacks completeness. Without annotations or output schema, it should ideally mention what 'list' returns (e.g., budget objects with IDs/names) or behavioral aspects. It meets basic requirements but leaves room for improvement.
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 zero parameters (schema coverage 100%), so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't mention parameters, and the baseline for zero parameters is 4. No additional semantic value could be added beyond what's already covered by the empty schema.
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 verb ('List') and resource ('YNAB budgets'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from siblings like 'list-accounts' or 'list-categories', but the resource specificity ('budgets') provides implicit differentiation. The description avoids tautology by not just restating the tool name.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'lookup-entity-by-id' and 'manage-budgeted-amount', there's no indication whether this tool is for browsing all budgets versus specific operations. No prerequisites, exclusions, or comparative context are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the tool lists payees and its utility, but it does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether it's read-only, if it requires specific permissions, rate limits, or what the output format looks like. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded, consisting of two concise sentences that directly convey the tool's purpose and utility without any wasted words. Every sentence earns its place by adding value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not cover behavioral aspects like safety, permissions, or output format, which are crucial for a tool that lists data. The description focuses on utility but misses key contextual details needed for full understanding.
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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'budget_id' parameter well-documented. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining parameter interactions or constraints. According to the rules, with high schema coverage, the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.
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 with a specific verb ('List') and resource ('payees for a given budget'), and it explains the utility ('finding payee IDs or identifying messy payee data that needs to be merged'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list-accounts' or 'list-transactions', which would require a 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 implies usage by stating it's 'good for finding payee IDs or identifying messy payee data that needs to be merged,' which suggests when to use it. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use it or mention alternatives like 'manage-payees' for editing, so it falls short of a higher score.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the tool lists accounts and is useful for getting IDs, but fails to disclose key behavioral traits such as whether it's read-only, if it requires specific permissions, how results are formatted, or any pagination/rate limits. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.
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 two concise sentences that are front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by a practical usage note. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, making it highly efficient and well-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 the tool's low complexity (one optional parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does and a use case, but lacks details on behavior, output format, or integration with siblings, leaving room for improvement in completeness.
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 input schema has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting the 'budget_id' parameter with its default behavior. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline of 3 without compensating or adding value.
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 action ('List all accounts') and the resource ('for a given budget'), which is specific and actionable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list-budgets' or 'list-categories', which would require a 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 implied usage by stating it's 'Useful for getting account IDs for other tools,' which suggests a preparatory or lookup role. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'lookup-entity-by-id' or how it relates to other list tools, falling short of a higher score.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool is 'useful for forecasting,' which adds some context, but fails to describe key behaviors such as whether it returns all scheduled transactions or is paginated, what format the output is in, or any rate limits or permissions required. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by a brief usage hint. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficiently structured and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.
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 the tool's low complexity (one optional parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the purpose and a usage hint, but lacks details on output format, behavioral traits, or differentiation from siblings. For a simple list tool, this is acceptable but leaves room for improvement in completeness.
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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'budget_id' parameter well-documented in the schema itself. The description does not add any additional meaning or details about parameters beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description does not compensate but also does not detract.
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 verb ('List') and resource ('upcoming scheduled transactions for a given budget'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list-transactions' or 'manage-scheduled-transaction', which could handle similar data, so it misses the top score.
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 includes 'Useful for forecasting upcoming bills,' which implies a context for when to use this tool, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives like 'list-transactions' or 'manage-scheduled-transaction.' No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving usage somewhat vague.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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. While it mentions the tool can 'update' (implying mutation), it doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, whether updates are destructive, or what happens when actions fail. For a multi-action tool with write capabilities, this is a significant gap in transparency.
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 efficiently communicate the tool's purpose and usage context. The first sentence states what the tool does, and the second provides valuable guidance about when to use it. There's no wasted verbiage or unnecessary repetition.
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 the tool's complexity (multi-action with both read and write operations), lack of annotations, and absence of an output schema, the description is somewhat incomplete. While it covers the basic purpose and usage context well, it doesn't address important behavioral aspects or return values that would be crucial for an agent to use this tool effectively, especially for mutation operations.
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 4 parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any meaningful parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain what 'refresh' means versus 'get', or clarify the structure of the 'data' object. This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.
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 with specific verbs ('Get, update, or refresh') and resource ('a high-level financial overview'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this multi-action tool from its siblings like 'list-accounts' or 'list-budgets' which might provide overlapping functionality.
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?
The description provides good contextual guidance by stating 'This is the best starting point for any analysis,' which helps the agent understand when to use this tool. It doesn't explicitly mention when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among the siblings, but the context is clear enough for effective decision-making.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a lookup/read operation, which implies it's non-destructive, but doesn't address potential behavioral aspects like error handling (e.g., what happens if the ID is invalid), authentication needs, rate limits, or the format of returned details. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.
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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, and the second sentence adds useful context. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, making it easy to scan and understand quickly.
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 the tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but has clear gaps. It covers the basic purpose and usage context, but without annotations or an output schema, it lacks details on behavioral traits, error handling, and the structure of returned 'details.' This makes it minimally viable but incomplete for full agent understanding.
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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters (budget_id, entity_id, entity_type) with descriptions. The description adds marginal value by implying the tool works with 'account, category, or payee' (mapping to entity_type) and 'ID' (mapping to entity_id), but doesn't provide additional syntax, format, or usage details beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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: 'Look up the name and details of a specific account, category, or payee by its ID.' It specifies the verb ('look up'), resource ('account, category, or payee'), and key constraint ('by its ID'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list-accounts' or 'list-payees' beyond the ID-based lookup aspect.
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?
The description provides clear context for when to use this tool: 'A utility for when you have an ID but need the full context.' This implies it's for retrieving details of known entities, contrasting with list tools that might be used for discovery. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives among siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While it mentions the merge/rename action, it doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like whether this is a destructive operation (likely yes, since it merges payees), what permissions are required, whether changes are reversible, or what happens to associated transactions. The example helps but leaves critical operational details unspecified.
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 perfectly sized with two sentences: the first states the core functionality, the second provides a concrete example. Every word earns its place, and the information is front-loaded with the primary purpose stated immediately.
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?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate purpose and usage context but lacks critical behavioral information. The example helps, but without disclosure of side effects, permissions, or return values, it leaves significant gaps for an agent trying to use this tool correctly.
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%, so the schema already documents all 4 parameters thoroughly. The description adds some context about the purpose ('clean up payee data') and provides an example that illustrates how parameters might be used together, but doesn't add significant semantic value beyond what's already in the schema descriptions.
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 ('merge multiple payee names into a single name') and resource ('payee data'), with a concrete example that distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'list-payees' or 'lookup-payee-locations'. It goes beyond just restating the tool name to explain the transformation function.
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?
The description provides clear context for when to use this tool ('to clean up payee data') with a helpful example scenario. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternatives among the sibling tools (like whether 'list-payees' should be used first to identify duplicates).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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. While it mentions the three actions (create, update, delete), it doesn't address important behavioral aspects like authentication requirements, error conditions, whether deletions are permanent, what happens with conflicting transactions, or rate limits. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.
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 perfectly concise with two sentences that each earn their place. The first sentence states the core functionality, and the second provides usage context. There's zero wasted language, and it's appropriately front-loaded with the essential information.
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?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate but incomplete context. It clearly states what the tool does and when to use it, but lacks behavioral details about permissions, side effects, and error handling. The high schema coverage helps, but for a tool that can delete data, more behavioral transparency would be beneficial.
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 four parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. According to the scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no parameter information in the description.
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 actions (create, update, delete) and resource (scheduled transaction) with concrete examples (recurring bills or savings transfers). It distinguishes this single-transaction tool from the sibling 'bulk-manage-transactions' tool by emphasizing 'a single scheduled transaction.'
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?
The description provides clear context for when to use this tool ('to manage recurring bills or savings transfers') and implicitly distinguishes it from bulk operations by specifying 'a single scheduled transaction.' However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives beyond the implied contrast with bulk operations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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 implies a read-only operation ('Get detailed budget information') and suggests a preparatory use ('before making changes'), but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or return format. It adds some context but falls short of fully describing behavioral traits for a tool with no annotation coverage.
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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with two sentences that efficiently convey purpose and usage without waste. Every sentence adds value: the first specifies what the tool does, and the second provides clear usage guidance, making it easy to scan and understand.
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 the tool's moderate complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is partially complete. It covers purpose and usage well but lacks details on behavioral aspects like return values, error cases, or operational constraints. Without annotations or output schema, more context on what to expect from the tool would improve completeness.
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%, so the schema already documents both parameters (budget_id and month) with their descriptions and defaults. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as format examples or usage tips, meeting the baseline score when schema does the heavy lifting.
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 detailed budget information for a single month') and resource ('month'), including key data points like 'age of money' and 'total amounts budgeted, spent, and available'. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on monthly budget status rather than listing entities (e.g., list-budgets, list-transactions) or managing data (e.g., manage-budgeted-amount).
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?
The description explicitly states when to use this tool: 'Call this to check the monthly budget's status before making changes.' This provides clear context for usage versus alternatives like manage-budgeted-amount for modifications or list-budgets for overviews, though it doesn't name specific alternatives, the guidance is sufficient for decision-making.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only operation ('List') and mentions the purpose of viewing available and allocated details, but lacks specifics on permissions, rate limits, pagination, or error handling. For a tool with no annotations, this is a moderate gap in behavioral disclosure.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by usage guidance. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.
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?
Given the tool's low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is reasonably complete. It covers purpose, usage, and workflow context, though it could benefit from more behavioral details (e.g., response format, error cases) to fully compensate for the lack of annotations and output schema.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the single parameter 'budget_id' with its default behavior. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, but with only one parameter and high coverage, the baseline is appropriately met without needing extra details.
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 ('List all categories, groups, and their budgeting details') and resource ('for a given budget'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'list-budgets' or 'list-transactions' by focusing on categories and budgeting details. It explicitly mentions what information is returned (categories, groups, budgeting details).
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?
The description provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('Call this before managing budgeted amounts') and why ('to see what's available and what's already been allocated'), directly contrasting with the sibling tool 'manage-budgeted-amount' for subsequent actions. It clearly establishes the tool's role in the workflow.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![ynab-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Jtewen/ynab-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Jtewen/ynab-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![ynab-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Jtewen/ynab-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Jtewen/ynab-mcp)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/Jtewen/ynab-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server