py-ynab-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

get_month

Retrieve a budget month's summary and per-category breakdown, including income, budgeted, activity, and available amounts.

Instructions

Get a single budget month with per-category breakdown.

Returns the month summary (income, budgeted, activity, available) plus every category's budgeted/activity/balance.

Args: month: Month to retrieve (YYYY-MM-DD, first of month, e.g. "2026-03-01") or "current" for the current month. 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": {
      "month": "<month>"
    },
    "name": "get_month"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`month`	Yes
`budget_id`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0Jul 12, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Without annotations, the description carries full burden and discloses the return value format. It doesn't mention error cases or rate limits, but the read-only nature is implied by the verb 'Get' and the description of returns.

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, with a clear introductory sentence, a bullet-point-style list of return values, and a structured Args section. Every sentence is useful and 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 the presence of an output schema, the description does not need to detail return values, but it does so helpfully. It covers the main behavior but could mention what happens if the month is invalid or the budget_id is wrong.

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

Parameters5/5

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

The description provides crucial meaning for both parameters, including the month format and special 'current' value, and the budget_id default. This adds significant value beyond the input schema which has no descriptions.

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 it gets a single budget month with per-category breakdown, specifying the resource and verb. It distinguishes from siblings like list_months by emphasizing the detailed breakdown.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description clearly indicates this tool is for retrieving a detailed single month, and notes the default for budget_id. However, it does not explicitly contrast with list_months or mention when not to use it.

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