Budgetsco MCP Server

Create new transaction

createTransaction

Create income, expense, or investment transactions with amount, category, and payment mode to record and analyze spending patterns in Budgetsco.

Instructions

Create new transaction.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "amount": "<amount>",
      "category": "<category>",
      "paymentMode": "<paymentMode>",
      "type": "<type>"
    },
    "name": "createTransaction"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`type`	Yes	Type of the transaction
`amount`	Yes	Amount of the transaction
`category`	Yes	Category of the transaction. Try to be as specific as possible since this helps in better analysis of spending patterns.
`description`	No	Description of the transaction
`paymentMode`	Yes	Payment mode
`transactionId`	No	Id of the existing transaction. If creating a new transaction, this should be null or undefined.
`isNewCustomCategory`	No	Is this a new custom category?

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedv1.0.8Sep 16, 2026

removedInput schema / description

Removed value: -"Parameters for creating a transaction"

changedInput schema / properties / amount / anyOf

Previous value: -[
-  {
-    "anyOf": [
-      {},
-      {
-        "type": "string"
-      }
-    ]
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "number"
-  }
-]New value: +[
+  {
+    "anyOf": [
+      {
+        "type": "string"
+      }
+    ]
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "number"
+  }
+]

First observedv1.0.0May 3, 2026

TDQS

C2.2/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already indicate this is a non-read-only operation, and the description only repeats the create action. No additional behavioral context is supplied, such as idempotency, duplicate behavior, side effects on custom categories, or the need for transactionId to be absent. It adds nothing beyond the structured annotations.

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 concise in length but not in value because it restates the title without adding information. It is not front-loaded with any differentiating detail and could apply to several sibling tools. This is under-specification rather than beneficial conciseness.

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

Completeness2/5

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

The tool has 7 parameters, 2 enums, and many siblings, yet the description provides no overall context. It does not explain the one-off nature, custom category flow, or distinction from recurring transaction creation. Although the schema covers parameter details, the tool-level context needed for correct invocation is missing.

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%, with every parameter individually documented, including enums and the unclear transactionId field. Since high schema coverage implies a baseline of 3, this score holds even though the description itself contributes no parameter meaning. The schema carries all semantics.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose2/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'Create new transaction' simply restates the tool title and name. It identifies the verb and resource but provides no differentiation from sibling tools like createRecurringTransaction or editTransaction. This is a tautology rather than a clear singular purpose.

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?

The description gives no guidance about when to use this tool instead of alternatives. There is no mention of one-off vs recurring transactions, no exclusion of editTransaction, and no conditional rules. An agent must infer usage purely from the name.

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

Deploy Server