Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Rocket Money MCP

Rocket Money MCP

by aidanouckama
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

list_categories

Read-onlyIdempotent

Read Rocket Money category IDs and inclusion flags to distinguish spending, income, and ignored categories when categorizing transactions or building budget reports.

Instructions

Read category IDs and inclusion flags to help distinguish spending, income and ignored categories.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "list_categories"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the response carries category IDs and inclusion flags — useful since there is no output schema — but it does not say whether all categories are returned, whether they are hierarchical, or how 'ignored' is represented.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the resource is named first. It is efficient, if slightly thin, with no redundant clauses.

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?

With zero parameters and rich safety annotations, the remaining burden is describing the return value, which the description only sketches (IDs and flags). For a discovery/listing tool lacking an output schema, more detail on what is returned and its ordering or scope would help an agent use it confidently.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter meaning to add and the baseline is 4; the description correctly does not invent parameter detail.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Read category IDs and inclusion flags'. The resource ('categories') is plainly distinct from siblings like list_accounts and list_transactions, so an agent can identify it without schema inspection, though there is no explicit sibling differentiation.

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 purpose clause ('to help distinguish spending, income and ignored categories') implies when the tool is useful, but it gives no explicit trigger conditions, prerequisites, or alternatives to prefer instead.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools