py-ynab-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

create_transactions

Create multiple YNAB transactions in one API call to reduce rate limit usage. Accepts transaction array, optional budget ID, and dry-run for validation.

Instructions

Create multiple transactions in YNAB in a single API call.

Preferred over create_transaction when creating multiple transactions to minimize rate limit usage.

Args: transactions_json: JSON array of transactions. Each element: {"account_id", "amount", "date", "payee_name"?, "payee_id"?, "category_id"?, "memo"?, "cleared"?, "approved"?}. Amounts are in dollars (e.g. "-42.50"). budget_id: Budget ID. Defaults to last-used budget. dry_run: Validate and preview without creating.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`dry_run`	No
`budget_id`	No
`transactions_json`	Yes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedv0.3.0Sep 8, 2026
- addedInput schema / properties / transactions_json / anyOf
```
Added value: +[
+  {
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  {
+    "items": {},
+    "type": "array"
+  }
+]
```
- removedInput schema / properties / transactions_json / type
```
Removed value: -"string"
```
First observedv0.2.0Jul 12, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It discloses the mutation action, the dry_run preview, and the dollar amount format, which is useful. However, it does not disclose important behaviors such as atomicity (what happens if some transactions fail), permission requirements, or reversibility. Given the batch nature, these gaps are noticeable, so a 3 is appropriate.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is well-structured with an Args section, front-loaded with the primary purpose and usage preference. It is concise, with no redundant sentences, and all information serves a clear purpose. The layout makes it easy for an agent to scan and extract key details.

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

Completeness3/5

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

An output schema exists, so return value details are not required. However, for a batch creation tool, the description should mention behavior on partial failure (e.g., atomicity, error reporting) and any prerequisites like authentication. These are not addressed. The description covers the basics but lacks critical operational context for a multi-item operation, so a 3 is justified.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does so thoroughly: it explains transactions_json as a JSON array with each element's fields and optional markers, provides an example of the amount format, clarifies budget_id's default behavior, and describes dry_run. The only minor gap is that the schema allows transactions_json to be either a string or an array, while the description only mentions an array, which could cause slight ambiguity. Still, it adds significant meaning beyond the schema.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Create multiple transactions in YNAB in a single API call.' It names the resource (transactions) and the action (create), and distinguishes it from the sibling create_transaction by focusing on the batch aspect. An agent can immediately tell what this tool does and how it differs from the singular variant.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description explicitly states when to use this tool: 'Preferred over create_transaction when creating multiple transactions to minimize rate limit usage.' This gives clear guidance on selecting it over the alternative and even mentions the rationale (rate limits). It also mentions the dry_run option for validation, which further clarifies usage context.

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