YNAB MCP Server

Delete transaction

delete_transaction

DestructiveIdempotent

Removes a specified transaction from a YNAB budget by ID, requiring user confirmation before deletion to prevent accidental data loss.

Instructions

Delete a transaction. Confirm with the user before deleting.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`transaction_id`	Yes	Transaction to delete (required)

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes	Unique transaction identifier
`date`	Yes	Transaction date
`flag`	No	Flag as 'Name (Color)' format
`memo`	No	User-entered memo
`amount`	Yes	Amount in currency units (negative = spending, positive = income)
`cleared`	Yes	Cleared status: 'cleared', 'uncleared', or 'reconciled'
`approved`	Yes	Whether the transaction is approved
`payee_id`	No	Payee ID
`account_id`	Yes	Account ID
`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 transaction
`transfer_account_id`	No	For a transfer, the other account
`parent_transaction_id`	No	Parent transaction ID if this is a part of a split
`import_payee_name_original`	No	For an imported transaction, the payee exactly as the bank wrote it. Useful for working out the real payee and category.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 26, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds the confirmation requirement, a real behavioral instruction beyond the annotations, but does not say whether deletion is permanent or what side effects occur (e.g., impact on account balance).

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 zero filler, and the confirm-before-deleting warning is front-loaded where an agent will see it. Nothing is padded or redundant.

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 annotations cover the safety profile, and the single parameter is fully documented, so the basics are complete. Still missing is whether deletion is irreversible or has cascading effects on related records, which matters for a finance-domain mutation tool.

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% for the single transaction_id parameter, so the schema already fully documents it. The description adds no format, sourcing, or validation detail beyond that, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 (delete) and resource (a transaction), which is unambiguous on its own. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from update_transactions or delete_scheduled_transaction, relying on the name for differentiation.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The instruction 'Confirm with the user before deleting' gives a clear operational precondition, which is genuinely useful. However, there is no guidance on when to delete versus update/correct a transaction, nor any mention of alternatives among the many sibling tools.

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