starling-bank-mcp

Update transaction spending category

feed_item_spending_category_update

Update the spending category for a specific Starling Bank transaction by providing account, category, and feed item identifiers.

Instructions

Update the spending category for a transaction

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`accountUid`	Yes	The account UID
`categoryUid`	Yes	The category UID (use default category for main account)
`feedItemUid`	Yes	The feed item UID
`spendingCategory`	Yes	The spending category to set

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`success`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.2.1Oct 19, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false, so the description bears most of the burden for behavioral disclosure. It does not state permission requirements, whether the update is reversible, what happens to the prior category, or any side effects. It adds nothing beyond restating the mutation.

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 efficient sentence with the action front-loaded and no wasted words. It is appropriately sized, though extremely sparse.

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, so return values need not be explained, and the annotations plus full schema coverage carry much of the load. Still, for a mutation tool the description could clarify preconditions or effects; it is minimally adequate rather than complete.

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%, so the schema already documents all four parameters, establishing a baseline of 3. The description adds no meaning beyond what the schema provides, so it does not exceed the baseline.

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 states a specific verb and resource: update the spending category of a transaction. This is clear and unambiguous. However, it does not distinguish it from sibling mutation tools like feed_item_note_update or other feed_item operations, so it stays below a 5.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The agent must infer the context entirely from the name and schema.

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