Skip to main content
Glama
calebl

YNAB MCP Server

by calebl
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Delete Transaction

ynab_delete_transaction
Destructive

Delete a transaction from your YNAB budget by providing its transaction ID. Removes it permanently, so use only when you need to remove an incorrect or duplicate entry.

Instructions

Deletes a transaction from the plan. This action cannot be undone.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
planIdNoThe plan ID (optional, defaults to YNAB_PLAN_ID; budgetId is a deprecated alias)
budgetIdNoDeprecated alias of planId (still accepted)
transactionIdYesThe ID of the transaction to delete

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed5 schema fields changedv0.3.0
    • removedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -false
    • addedInput schema / properties / budgetId / anyOf
      Added value: +[
+  {
+    "description": "Deprecated alias of planId (still accepted)",
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "null"
+  }
+]
    • changedInput schema / properties / budgetId / description
      Previous value: -"The ID of the budget (optional, defaults to YNAB_BUDGET_ID environment variable)"New value: +"Deprecated alias of planId (still accepted)"
    • removedInput schema / properties / budgetId / type
      Removed value: -"string"
    • addedInput schema / properties / planId
      Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "description": "The plan ID (optional, defaults to YNAB_PLAN_ID; budgetId is a deprecated alias)",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "description": "The plan ID (optional, defaults to YNAB_PLAN_ID; budgetId is a deprecated alias)"
+}
  2. Addedv1.0.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

The annotation destructiveHint=true already signals destruction, but the description adds the important context that the action cannot be undone. However, it does not elaborate on downstream effects, such as impact on account balances or related scheduled transactions, so it adds only modest value beyond the annotations.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler: the first states the action and target, the second warns about irreversibility. Every word earns its place, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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?

For a simple destructive operation with one required parameter and annotations already declaring destructive/read-only behavior, the description is largely sufficient. It could mention what happens after deletion or what response to expect, but that is not essential for invoking the tool correctly.

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%, and the schema already documents transactionId as the target ID plus planId/budgetId fallback behavior. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Deletes'), a specific resource ('a transaction'), and the scope ('from the plan'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like ynab_update_transaction or ynab_create_transaction. The purpose is immediately unambiguous.

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 guidance is given about when to choose this tool over alternatives, nor any conditions or prerequisites for deletion. The agent is left to infer that this is the destructive counterpart to update/create tools.

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