Skip to main content
Glama

ynab_create_receipt_split_transaction

Create a split transaction from receipt line items, automatically allocating tax proportionally across categories. Ideal for recording itemized purchases.

Instructions

Create a split transaction from itemized receipt data with proportional tax allocation.

Args:

  • budget_id (string, optional): Budget UUID. Omit to use the default budget.

  • account_id (string, required): Account UUID.

  • payee_name (string, required): Store/payee name.

  • receipt_total (number, required): Total amount in dollars (positive).

  • receipt_tax (number, required): Tax amount in dollars (0 if none).

  • categories (array, required): Category groups with items. Each item needs name, amount.

  • date (string, optional): ISO date. Default: today.

  • memo (string, optional): Memo applied to the parent transaction.

  • receipt_subtotal (number, optional): Pre-tax subtotal for validation.

  • cleared (string, optional): "cleared", "uncleared", or "reconciled". Default: "uncleared".

  • approved (boolean, optional): Mark as approved. Default: false.

  • flag_color (string, optional): Transaction flag color ("red", "orange", "yellow", "green", "blue", "purple").

  • dry_run (boolean, optional): Preview subtransactions without saving. Default: false.

Use this helper when you have receipt line items and want tax allocated across categories automatically. For generic manual split transactions without receipt/tax logic, use "ynab_create_transaction" with "subtransactions".

Returns: transaction with subtransactions and receipt_summary.

Write safety: call without confirmation_token to preview. Execute the identical validated request with the short-lived confirmation_token returned by that preview.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dateNo
memoNo
clearedNo
dry_runNo
approvedNo
budget_idNo
account_idYes
categoriesYes
flag_colorNo
payee_nameYes
receipt_taxYes
receipt_totalYes
receipt_subtotalNo
confirmation_tokenNoShort-lived, single-use token returned by the immediately preceding preview of this exact validated request.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations show it is not read-only, not destructive, not idempotent. The description adds the preview workflow with confirmation_token and mentions proportional tax allocation. It does not contradict annotations. The write safety preview mechanism is explained, which is valuable 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.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is well-structured with a purpose sentence, a parameter list, usage guidance, return info, and a safety note. It is somewhat lengthy due to the parameter list but each element serves a purpose. Could be slightly more concise but remains clear.

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?

Given the complexity (14 params, nested categories, tax allocation), the description explains the purpose, workflow, and preview mechanism. It mentions the return includes transaction with subtransactions and receipt_summary. However, it does not detail the tax allocation algorithm, but this is likely acceptable. Output schema exists, reducing the need for return details.

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?

Schema description coverage is only 7% (only confirmation_token has description). The description provides explicit type, requirement, and meaning for all 14 parameters (e.g., budget_id: 'Budget UUID. Omit to use the default budget.'). This fully compensates for the low schema coverage, adding significant value.

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 it 'Create[s] a split transaction from itemized receipt data with proportional tax allocation.' It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'ynab_create_transaction' by specifying that this is for receipt-based tax allocation, while the sibling is for generic manual splits.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use this helper when you have receipt line items and want tax allocated across categories automatically. For generic manual split transactions without receipt/tax logic, use "ynab_create_transaction" with "subtransactions".' This provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use with an alternative.

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/dizzlkheinz/ynab-mcpb'

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