Budgetsco MCP Server

Edit transaction

editTransaction

Idempotent

Update an existing transaction's details, including amount, category, payment mode, and type, to keep financial records accurate.

Instructions

Edit an existing 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": "editTransaction"
  }
}

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 editing an existing 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

C2.8/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already state readOnly=false, idempotent=true, and destructive=false, so there is no contradiction. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond 'edit' – it does not explain that an existing transaction must be identified, what effects the edit has, or how idempotency applies.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is a single sentence with no wasted words flags, which is concise. However, it is so terse that it omits useful behavioral and contextual details, making it more under-specified than genuinely efficient for a 7-parameter mutation tool.

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?

For a 7-parameter mutation tool with no output schemaabbey, the description is too sparse. It does not explain how to identify which transaction to edit, even though transactionId is not marked required in the schema. The presence of createTransaction and editRecurringTransaction siblings makes this ambiguity more consequential.

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%, and the schema already provides meaningful property descriptions and enums, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate. The description itself adds no parameter-level information, but the schema carries that burden adequately.

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 uses a specific verb ('Edit') and a clear resource ('existing transaction'), which distinguishes it from createTransaction and deleteTransaction at a high level. However, it does not disambiguate from editRecurringTransaction or explain the transactionId ambiguity, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus createTransaction or editRecurringTransaction. The phrase 'existing transaction' is the only contextual cue, with no mention of alternatives, prerequisites, or conditions that should route an agent elsewhere.

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

Deploy Server