Skip to main content
Glama
a1athrop

YNAB MCP Server

by a1athrop

update_transaction

Modify existing YNAB transaction details including amount, date, payee, category, status, or convert to split transactions for accurate budget tracking.

Instructions

Update an existing transaction.

Args: transaction_id: The transaction UUID to update. account_id: Move to a different account. date: New date (YYYY-MM-DD). amount: New amount in milliunits. payee_name: New payee name. payee_id: New payee UUID. category_id: New category UUID. memo: New memo. cleared: New cleared status: "cleared", "uncleared", or "reconciled". approved: New approved status. flag_color: New flag color: red, orange, yellow, green, blue, purple. subtransactions: Array of subtransaction objects to convert this into a split transaction. Each item: {"amount": int, "category_id": "uuid", "memo": "text", "payee_id": "uuid", "payee_name": "text"}. Only amount and category_id are required per sub. The sub amounts must sum to the parent amount. When adding subtransactions, also provide the new parent amount if changing it. budget_id: Budget ID (uses default if omitted).

Returns: Updated transaction details.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
transaction_idYes
account_idNo
dateNo
amountNo
payee_nameNo
payee_idNo
category_idNo
memoNo
clearedNo
approvedNo
flag_colorNo
subtransactionsNo
budget_idNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes
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 mutation ('Update') but doesn't specify permission requirements, whether changes are reversible, or any rate limits. The description does add some context about split transactions and parameter defaults, but lacks comprehensive behavioral details for a mutation tool.

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 well-structured with clear sections (Args, Returns) and uses bullet-like formatting for parameters. While comprehensive, some sentences could be more concise (e.g., the subtransactions explanation is verbose). Overall, it's efficiently organized with minimal waste.

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 complexity (13 parameters, mutation operation, no annotations) and the presence of an output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It thoroughly documents parameters and mentions return values. However, it lacks behavioral context like error conditions or side effects that would be helpful for a mutation tool.

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 fully compensates by providing detailed semantic explanations for all 13 parameters. It clarifies data formats (YYYY-MM-DD, milliunits), enumerated values for 'cleared' and 'flag_color', complex requirements for 'subtransactions', and default behavior for 'budget_id'. This adds substantial value beyond the bare 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 ('Update') and resource ('an existing transaction'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'update_category' or 'update_month_category' beyond the resource type, which prevents 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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_transaction' or 'delete_transaction'. It mentions no prerequisites, constraints, or typical use cases, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

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/a1athrop/ynab-mcp'

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