List all budget category groups and categories with their IDs, names, and remaining balances, then use a category ID to categorize transactions.
Lists the category groups and categories in a budget, with their IDs, names, and remaining balances. Use a category's id with categorize_transaction.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| budget_id | No | The budget ID, or 'last-used' for the most recently used budget. | last-used |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.9.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the payload shape (IDs, names, remaining balances), which is useful, but says nothing about whether hidden/deleted categories are included, ordering, pagination, or budget permissions. For a low-risk read operation this is acceptable but not rich.
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?
Two short sentences, zero filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded before the cross-tool hint. Every sentence earns its place.
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?
There is no output schema, but the description compensates by naming the fields returned, and the single optional parameter is fully covered by the schema. Only minor gaps remain (ordering, filtering, inclusion of hidden categories).
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%: budget_id is fully documented in the schema, including the 'last-used' default. The description only echoes 'in a budget' and adds no syntax or semantics beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Lists the category groups and categories in a budget') and even enumerates the returned fields (IDs, names, remaining balances). It is clear what the tool does, but it never contrasts itself with adjacent siblings like get_category_targets, list_overspent_categories, or spending_by_category, so sibling differentiation is left to inference.
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?
The second sentence ('Use a category's id with categorize_transaction') is a downstream handoff hint, implying the tool is used when you need category IDs. There is no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives and no exclusion conditions, so usage is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.