Find payees in any YNAB plan by name substring. Returns payee IDs, names, and transfer target accounts for transfer payees, helping to identify correct payees during reconciliation.
List payees in a plan: id, name, and the transfer target account for transfer payees. search matches the name (substring).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| plan | No | ||
| search | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare the tool read-only, so the description does not need to restate that. It adds useful behavioral details: the search parameter matches the name as a substring, and transfer payees include a transfer target account. This goes beyond the structured annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, tightly written sentence that front-loads the action and key output fields. There is no redundancy or filler; every clause adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers the tool's core purpose, output fields, and search behavior, and an output schema exists. However, it leaves the 'plan' parameter ambiguous and does not mention potential pagination or sorting, which an agent might need. It is adequate but not exhaustive.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema coverage, the description carries the burden of explaining parameters. It describes the 'search' parameter's substring matching behavior, but does not explain what 'plan' refers to or how it filters results. This is a partial compensation only.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it lists payees in a plan and specifies the returned fields (id, name, transfer target account). It is specific and actionable, but it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like list_plans or list_accounts, so it stops short of a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the sibling list tools. The search feature is mentioned but there is no context about when to invoke this tool or when an alternative would be more appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.