Retrieve uncategorized YNAB transactions for a budget so you can review and assign categories. Use it to find pending items and keep your budget accurate.
Lists transactions that don't yet have a category assigned, so they can be reviewed and categorized.
| 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 disclosure burden. It implies a read-only list operation, but says nothing about ordering, pagination, result limits, or whether the default 'last-used' budget applies. For a simple read tool this is adequate 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?
A single tight sentence that front-loads the core operation and adds a brief purpose clause. No wasted words, though it is on the terse side given no output schema exists.
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?
For a simple one-parameter list tool it is close to sufficient, but with no output schema and no annotation coverage, details like returned fields, ordering, or pagination behavior are left entirely unspecified.
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% and the single budget_id parameter is fully documented in the schema, including the 'last-used' default. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 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?
The description states a specific verb (Lists) and resource (transactions) with a clear scope qualifier (don't yet have a category assigned). This distinguishes it from general listing tools, though it does not explicitly name siblings like list_unapproved_transactions or search_transactions.
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 phrase 'so they can be reviewed and categorized' implies the workflow context (pre-categorization review), giving some usage guidance. However, it never says when to choose this over search_transactions or how it relates to categorize_transaction/suggest_category.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.