createCustomCategoriesCreate custom transaction categories by selecting a type (expense, income, or investment) and providing category names. This helps organize financial records with labels tailored to your budgeting needs.
Create new custom categories for transactions.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| type | Yes | ||
| categories | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.8Input schema / descriptionRemoved value: -"Parameters for creating custom categories"v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond what annotations already convey about mutation, the description adds almost no behavioral context. It does not disclose whether duplicates are allowed, whether existing categories are affected, whether the type scopes the categories, or what the response looks like. The phrase 'for transactions' adds little beyond the tool name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single focused sentence with no filler and the action is front-loaded. It is appropriately brief for a simple create tool, though the brevity comes at the cost of missing parameter and behavioral context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple and the schema supplies the required parameters, so the overall definition is minimally viable. Still, the description leaves clear gaps: it does not mention the required type parameter, duplicate behavior, or output, and it relies entirely on sibling names for routing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description needed to explain the parameters, but it only echoes the word 'categories' and completely omits the required type enum. The schema's enum and array constraints are self-evident, but the description does not compensate for the lack of schema-level descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a clear verb ('Create') and resource ('custom categories'), and the 'for transactions' phrasing distinguishes it from category-management siblings like deleteCustomCategories and getCustomCategories. It stops short of 5 because it does not clarify what 'custom' means relative to default categories or how categories are scoped by type.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage context is implied by the create verb and the clear contrast with sibling tools such as deleteCustomCategories and getCustomCategories. However, it never explicitly says when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or constraints around the required type field.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.