Skip to main content
Glama
drishit96

Budgetsco MCP Server

by drishit96
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Create Recurring Transaction

createRecurringTransaction

Schedule recurring income, expense, or investment transactions with custom intervals, frequency, and payment mode to automate financial tracking.

Instructions

Create a recurring transaction

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
typeYesType of the recurring transaction
amountYesAmount of the recurring transaction
categoryYesCategory of the recurring transaction
intervalYesInterval for the recurrence, for example, 1 for every day, 2 for every two months, etc.
startDateNoStart date of the recurring transaction. If not provided, it adds the transaction to the next occurrence based on the current date.
occurrenceYesFrequency of the recurrence, for example, 'day' for daily, 'month' for monthly, 'year' for yearly
descriptionNo
paymentModeYesPayment mode
transactionIdNoId of the existing transaction. If creating a new transaction, this should be null or undefined.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv1.0.8
    • removedInput schema / description
      Removed value: -"Parameters for creating a recurring transaction. Recurring transactions are used to automate the creation of transactions that occur on a regular basis, such as monthly bills or weekly salaries."
    • changedInput schema / properties / amount / anyOf
      Previous value: -[
-  {
-    "anyOf": [
-      {},
-      {
-        "type": "string"
-      }
-    ]
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "number"
-  }
-]New value: +[
+  {
+    "anyOf": [
+      {
+        "type": "string"
+      }
+    ]
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "number"
+  }
+]
  2. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

C2.2/5.0
Behavior1/5

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

The description adds no behavioral information beyond what annotations already provide. Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false (write operation) and destructiveHint=false, but the description does not disclose side effects, idempotency, or how the recurring schedule is managed. It offers zero additional transparency.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness2/5

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

The description is one short sentence, but it is essentially a tautology of the tool name. It is concise but not informative; it does not earn its place because it adds no value beyond what the name already conveys.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness1/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With 9 parameters, 6 required, multiple enums, and no output schema, the description is woefully incomplete. It does not explain the effect of startDate, the return value, or how this tool differs from createTransaction. An agent has no way to correctly call this tool beyond guessing from parameter names.

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 89%, so most parameters already have descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds no parameter information, but the baseline of 3 applies since the schema carries the burden. The description does not compensate for the 11% gap (e.g., 'description' parameter lacks a schema description).

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 clearly states the verb 'Create' and the resource 'a recurring transaction', which is unambiguous. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like createTransaction or editRecurringTransaction, so it lacks the sibling differentiation needed for 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 Guidelines1/5

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of conditions that favor createRecurringTransaction over createTransaction or editRecurringTransaction, leaving the agent to infer usage entirely from context.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools