YNAB MCP Server

Create payee

create_payee

Create a payee in YNAB to set it up before transactions use it. Use this when you need a payee available ahead of time.

Instructions

Create a payee.

A new transaction can also create its payee by giving payee_name, so this is only needed to set up a payee before any transaction uses it.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	Yes	Payee name, at most 500 characters (required)

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes	Unique payee identifier
`name`	Yes	Payee name
`transfer_account_id`	No	For a transfer payee, the account that transfers to it go into

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 26, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare the mutation profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds the useful workflow fact that transactions can self-create payees, but says nothing about duplicate handling, whether a name collision errors or succeeds, or what the output contains – relevant gaps for a non-idempotent write.

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, front-loaded with the action and followed immediately by the disambiguation. Nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations.

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

Completeness5/5

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

A one-parameter create tool with an output schema and full annotation coverage needs little more: the agent knows what it does, when it is unnecessary, and that the result is returned in a defined shape. Nothing required for correct invocation is missing.

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 only parameter (name) is documented with its 500-character limit and required status. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 the specific verb and resource ('Create a payee') and contrasts it with the implicit alternative of letting a transaction auto-create the payee via payee_name, so an agent can tell it apart from the transaction-creation path without reading the schema. It stops short of naming the concrete sibling tool by name, keeping it at a 4.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance ('only needed to set up a payee before any transaction uses it') and implicitly says when not to use it. It does not address what happens if the payee already exists, which matters given idempotentHint=false.

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