py-ynab-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

delete_transaction

Delete a transaction from your YNAB budget by providing its ID. Optionally preview changes with a dry run before applying.

Instructions

Delete a transaction from YNAB.

Args: transaction_id: Transaction UUID to delete. budget_id: Budget ID. Defaults to last-used budget. dry_run: Validate and preview without deleting.

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": {
      "transaction_id": "<transaction_id>"
    },
    "name": "delete_transaction"
  }
}

Input Schema

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

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0Jul 12, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

The description discloses the destructive nature ('Delete') and includes a dry_run parameter for preview, which adds transparency. However, it does not discuss reversibility, effects on budget, or error handling for missing transactions.

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 concise: a single sentence followed by a bullet list of arguments. It is front-loaded with the core action and every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

Given no annotations and only 3 parameters, the description covers the basic operation but lacks details on return values (though output schema exists), edge cases, and behavioral context like what happens after deletion.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds meaningful explanations for all three parameters: transaction_id ('UUID to delete'), budget_id ('Defaults to last-used budget'), and dry_run ('Validate and preview without deleting'). This compensates well for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 'Delete a transaction from YNAB' with a specific verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like delete_scheduled_transaction, though the context distinguishes it as a regular transaction deletion.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., delete_scheduled_transaction). Prerequisites like transaction existence or constraints like reconciled transactions are not mentioned.

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