Zen Money MCP

update_transaction

Modify a transaction's amount, date, description, payee, or category by ID to correct or adjust recorded financial data.

Instructions

Изменить сумму, дату, описание, получателя или категорию операции.

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": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "update_transaction"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes
`date`	No
`payee`	No
`amount`	No
`comment`	No
`category`	No
`receivedAmount`	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 behavioral burden, yet it says nothing about whether omitted fields are left untouched (patch semantics), whether passing null clears a field, what permissions are needed, or whether the change is reversible. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage this is a substantial gap.

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?

A single compact sentence with no filler, listing the mutable fields up front. Efficient, though it lacks any structure beyond the flat enumeration.

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?

A 7-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage should explain partial-update semantics, the undocumented 'receivedAmount', and the required 'id'. None of that is present, so the definition is not sufficient for confident invocation.

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%, and the description only names five of the seven parameters (amount, date, comment, payee, category), omitting 'id' and 'receivedAmount' entirely. Even the named fields get no format or constraint hints (e.g. date pattern, non-negative amount), so it barely compensates for the empty schema descriptions.

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?

Specific verb ('Изменить' = modify/update) plus resource ('операции' = transaction) and an enumeration of the editable fields (amount, date, comment, payee, category). This clearly separates it from create_transaction / delete_transaction siblings by implication, but never states the differentiation explicitly.

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?

No indication of when to use this versus create_transaction or delete_transaction, no prerequisites (e.g. the transaction must exist, must be owned by the user), and no mention of how partial updates are handled. The agent must infer everything from the name.

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