Budgetsco MCP Server

Edit Recurring Transaction

editRecurringTransaction

Idempotent

Update an existing recurring transaction by changing its amount, category, interval, payment mode, or start date to keep financial records accurate.

Instructions

Edit a recurring 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>",
      "interval": "<interval>",
      "occurrence": "<occurrence>",
      "paymentMode": "<paymentMode>",
      "type": "<type>"
    },
    "name": "editRecurringTransaction"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`type`	Yes	Type of the recurring transaction
`amount`	Yes	Amount of the recurring transaction
`category`	Yes	Category of the recurring transaction
`interval`	Yes	Interval for the recurrence, for example, 1 for every day, 2 for every two months, etc.
`startDate`	No	Start date of the recurring transaction. If not provided, it adds the transaction to the next occurrence based on the current date.
`occurrence`	Yes	Frequency of the recurrence, for example, 'day' for daily, 'month' for monthly, 'year' for yearly
`description`	No
`paymentMode`	Yes	Payment mode
`transactionId`	No	Id of the existing transaction. If creating a new transaction, this should be null or undefined.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedv1.0.8Sep 16, 2026

removedInput schema / description

Removed value: -"Parameters for editing 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"
+  }
+]

First observedv1.0.0May 3, 2026

TDQS

D1.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare the tool as non-read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond the word 'Edit', such as what happens to related occurrences, whether updates are partial or full, or any side effects. No additional transparency is provided.

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?

At one sentence, it is extremely concise but at the expense of substance. The description is merely the title restated, which is under-specification rather than efficient engineering. There is no front-loaded key information.

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?

A 9-parameter tool with 6 required parameters and no output schema requires a richer description to explain behavior around partial updates, validation, or assumptions. The one-sentence description leaves all operational details to inference, making it inadequate for safe and correct invocation.

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 the input schema already gives strong semantic meaning to each parameter. The description adds no parameter-level information, but the schema bears most of the load; according to the rubric, the baseline for high coverage is 3.

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 'Edit a recurring transaction' is a tautology of the tool name and title, adding no information beyond what the agent already knows. It does not specify which aspects of a recurring transaction can be edited or differentiate this tool from closely related siblings like editTransaction.

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 such as createRecurringTransaction, deleteRecurringTransaction, or editTransaction. There are no conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions mentioned, leaving agents to infer usage from the schema alone.

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

Deploy Server