py-ynab-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

get_account

Fetch full details for a single YNAB account, including balance, type, and on-budget status, using account ID and optional budget ID.

Instructions

Get a single YNAB account with full details.

Returns balance, type, on-budget status, note, and more.

Args: account_id: Account UUID. budget_id: Budget ID. Defaults to last-used budget.

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": {
      "account_id": "<account_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_account"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`budget_id`	No
`account_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

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool is a read operation returning full details, and mentions default behavior for budget_id. However, it does not discuss side effects, rate limits, or authorization requirements.

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 very concise: a single sentence for purpose, a sentence listing returned fields, and a structured argument list. No wasted words, and the key information is front-loaded.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given that an output schema exists, the description does not need detailed return value explanations, but it still lists key fields. It covers the main purpose and parameter defaults. Minor omission: no guidance on errors or prerequisites, but overall sufficient for a simple get tool.

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 0%, but the description adds meaning by explaining that budget_id defaults to last-used budget and that account_id is a UUID. It also hints at return fields, which indirectly clarifies parameter purpose. Baseline is 3 due to low coverage, and description adds marginal value.

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 retrieves a single YNAB account with full details, specifying the verb 'get' and the resource 'account'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_accounts by focusing on a single account and listing returned fields.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies usage when needing detailed information for one account and notes that budget_id defaults to last-used budget, but it does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives like list_accounts or provide exclusions.

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