YNAB MCP Server

Create scheduled transaction

create_scheduled_transaction

Create recurring or one-time YNAB transactions for bills, paychecks, or transfers by setting account, amount, date, and frequency.

Instructions

Schedule a transaction: a bill, a paycheck, or a regular transfer.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`date`	Yes	First date it happens: in the future, at most 5 years out (required)
`memo`	No	Memo, at most 500 characters (optional)
`amount`	Yes	Amount in currency units: negative for spending, positive for income (required)
`payee_id`	No	Payee, by ID (optional)
`frequency`	Yes	How often it repeats, or "never" for once (required)
`account_id`	Yes	Account it happens in (required)
`flag_color`	No	Flag color (optional)
`payee_name`	No	Payee by name, when payee_id is not given. YNAB uses the payee with this name, or creates it (optional)
`category_id`	No	Category. Credit card payment categories are not allowed (optional)
`transfer_account_id`	No	For a transfer, the other account. Use instead of a payee (optional)

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes	Unique scheduled transaction identifier
`flag`	No	Flag as 'Name (Color)' format
`memo`	No	User-entered memo
`amount`	Yes	Amount in currency units (negative = spending, positive = income)
`payee_id`	No	Payee ID
`date_next`	Yes	Next occurrence date
`frequency`	Yes	How often it happens
`account_id`	Yes	Account ID
`date_first`	Yes	First occurrence date
`payee_name`	No	Payee name
`category_id`	No	Category ID
`account_name`	No	Account name
`category_name`	No	Category name
`subtransactions`	No	The parts of a split scheduled transaction
`transfer_account_id`	No	For a transfer, the other account

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 26, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world mutation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not say whether scheduling creates future transactions automatically, whether duplicates are created on repeat calls (relevant given idempotentHint=false), or what the required permissions are.

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 well-formed sentence with no filler and the core purpose front-loaded. It is efficient, though its brevity borders on under-specification rather than tightness.

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

Completeness3/5

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

An output schema exists and parameters are fully documented, so the description needn't cover return values. However, for a ten-parameter mutation that establishes a recurring schedule, the description omits the one thing structure cannot convey: how scheduled transactions behave (auto-creation of future entries, effect of the date/frequency pairing).

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 all ten properties carry meaningful descriptions, including the frequency enum and the payee_id vs payee_name interaction. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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?

The description gives a specific verb (schedule) and resource (transaction) and adds examples of what that means in practice: bill, paycheck, regular transfer. It does not, however, distinguish this from sibling create_transactions (one-time) or update_scheduled_transaction, so sibling differentiation is left to the name alone.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this versus create_transactions for a single-dated transaction, nor when to use it versus update_scheduled_transaction or enter_scheduled_transaction. The agent must infer the scheduling lifecycle entirely from tool names.

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