Skip to main content
Glama
artarasov

zenmoney-mcp

by artarasov
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

update_transaction

Modify existing ZenMoney transactions: change category, amount, date, payee, comment, or account. Pass one or more IDs to apply the same edit to multiple entries.

Instructions

Change an existing transaction: its category, amount, date, payee, comment or account. Only the fields you pass are touched. Pass a single id or a list of ids to apply the same change to several transactions at once (handy for recategorizing). Ids come from list_transactions. Sync must be done first.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesTransaction UUID, or a list of UUIDs to update together
dateNoNew transaction date in YYYY-MM-DD format
payeeNoNew payee. Pass an empty string to clear it. The linked merchant is re-matched to the new payee.
amountNoNew amount for an expense or income. For transfers use outcome_amount/income_amount instead.
accountNoMove the transaction to another account (name or UUID). Not valid for transfers — use from_account/to_account there.
commentNoNew comment. Pass an empty string to clear it.
categoryNoNew category name or UUID (or several). Pass an empty string or an empty array to remove the category.
to_accountNoNew destination account of a transfer (name or UUID)
from_accountNoNew source account of a transfer (name or UUID)
income_amountNoNew amount credited to the destination account
outcome_amountNoNew amount debited from the source account

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.4.1

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose a key mutation semantic: "Only the fields you pass are touched" (partial update), plus bulk-apply behavior and the sync-first prerequisite. It omits permission requirements, reversibility, and error behavior, which are relevant for an 11-parameter mutation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then partial-update semantics, bulk behavior, id source, and the prerequisite. Every clause earns its place with no filler.

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 a rich 11-parameter schema but no annotations and no output schema, the description covers mutation scope, bulk mode, and the sync prerequisite, which is most of what an agent needs. It leaves permissions and failure behavior unstated, a minor gap for a tool this well-specified elsewhere.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so every parameter including the transfer fields (from_account/to_account/outcome_amount/income_amount) is already documented in the schema. The description's bulk-id explanation largely restates the schema's id description, adding only the "same change to several" framing, so baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ("Change an existing transaction") and enumerates the mutable fields, which cleanly separates it from the add_expense/add_income/add_transfer siblings. Referencing list_transactions as the id source further anchors it in the tool graph.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives concrete usage context: bulk recategorization via a list of ids, the requirement that sync run first, and where ids come from. It does not state when-not-to-use or flag the transfer-specific path (from/to_account) as an alternative mode, so it stops just short of explicit alternatives.

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