Zen Money MCP

set_budget

Sets a monthly income or expense budget, optionally for a category, and updates it in Zen Money so users can plan and track financial targets.

Instructions

Установить месячный бюджет дохода или расхода. Изменит бюджет в Дзен-мани.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "month": "<month>",
      "type": "<type>",
      "amount": "<amount>"
    },
    "name": "set_budget"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`type`	Yes
`month`	Yes
`amount`	Yes
`category`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Nov 1, 2026

TDQS

C2.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. 'Изменит бюджет в Дзен-мани' does signal an external mutation, but it never says whether an existing budget for the same month/type is overwritten, whether the action is reversible, what permissions are needed, or what is returned.

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?

Two short sentences, no padding, and the core action is front-loaded. The second sentence adds a little context about the external system, though it borders on redundant with 'Установить'.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 4-parameter mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, no output schema, and 0% schema descriptions, the definition is too thin. Overwrite behavior, the meaning of the optional category, and expected outcome are all missing.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0% across 4 parameters, so the description must compensate – but it only loosely maps to 'monthly' and 'income or expense'. It gives no hint about the YYYY-MM format for month, currency/units for amount, or what the optional category scopes the budget to.

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+resource ('Установить месячный бюджет') and distinguishes the two budget kinds (income vs. expense). It does not name its siblings (list_budgets, delete_budget) or clarify that this is the create/update path rather than a read, so it falls short of full 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 Guidelines2/5

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus list_budgets or delete_budget, and no prerequisites are stated (e.g. must the category/account exist first?). The agent must infer the create-or-replace semantics entirely on its own.

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