Skip to main content
Glama
dgalarza

YNAB MCP Server

by dgalarza

update_transaction

Modify existing YNAB transaction details including amount, date, payee, category, and status to correct errors or update financial records.

Instructions

Update an existing transaction.

Args:
    budget_id: The ID of the budget (use 'last-used' for default budget)
    transaction_id: The ID of the transaction to update
    account_id: The account ID (optional - keeps existing if not provided)
    date: Transaction date in YYYY-MM-DD format (optional)
    amount: Transaction amount (optional)
    payee_name: Name of the payee (optional)
    category_id: Category ID (optional)
    memo: Transaction memo (optional)
    cleared: Cleared status - 'cleared', 'uncleared', or 'reconciled' (optional)
    approved: Whether the transaction is approved (optional)

Returns:
    JSON string with the updated transaction

Important Limitations:
    - Cannot add or update subtransactions on existing transactions
    - Cannot convert a regular transaction into a split transaction
    - If the transaction is already a split, its category_id cannot be changed
    - Split transaction dates and amounts cannot be modified
    - To create a split transaction, use create_split_transaction instead

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
account_idNo
amountNo
approvedNo
budget_idYes
category_idNo
clearedNo
dateNo
memoNo
payee_nameNo
transaction_idYes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key behavioral traits: it's a mutation tool (implied by 'Update'), returns JSON, and outlines important limitations (e.g., cannot update subtransactions, split transaction restrictions). However, it doesn't mention error handling, rate limits, or authentication needs, leaving some gaps.

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?

The description is well-structured with clear sections (Args, Returns, Important Limitations) and front-loaded key information. It's appropriately sized for a 10-parameter tool with complex constraints, though some sentences in the limitations could be slightly more concise.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (10 parameters, mutation operation, no annotations) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is highly complete. It covers purpose, parameters, returns, and critical limitations, providing all necessary context for the agent to use the tool correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The description adds significant meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains each parameter's purpose, optionality, and specific details (e.g., 'use 'last-used' for default budget' for budget_id, date format, cleared status options). This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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?

The description clearly states the specific action ('Update an existing transaction') and resource ('transaction'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_transaction, create_split_transaction, and get_transaction. The title is null, making the description's clarity even more critical, which it delivers.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, particularly in the 'Important Limitations' section, which states 'To create a split transaction, use create_split_transaction instead.' It also clarifies constraints on split transactions, helping the agent avoid misuse.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/dgalarza/ynab-mcp-dgalarza'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server