py-ynab-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

get_transaction

Retrieve complete details of a single YNAB transaction using its unique ID. Optionally provide a budget ID to fetch from a specific budget.

Instructions

Get a single YNAB transaction with full details.

Args: transaction_id: Transaction 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": {
      "transaction_id": "<transaction_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_transaction"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`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

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention that the operation is read-only, what happens if the transaction is not found, or any auth/rate-limit concerns. The phrase 'with full details' is vague and insufficient.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is short and to the point, using a docstring-style format. It omits unnecessary fluff but could be trimmed further. The information is front-loaded and each sentence serves a purpose.

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?

With an output schema present, the description does not need to explain return values. However, it lacks usage guidelines and behavioral traits. For a simple 2-parameter tool, it is mostly adequate but has notable gaps.

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?

Although schema coverage is 0%, the description adds meaning by explaining both parameters: transaction_id (UUID) and budget_id (defaults to last-used budget). This provides useful context beyond the schema, especially the default behavior for budget_id.

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 'Get a single YNAB transaction with full details,' specifying the verb (get) and resource (transaction). It effectively distinguishes this tool from siblings like list_transactions (returns multiple) and update_transaction (mutates).

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_account, get_category) or any prerequisites. The description lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use context, leaving the agent without comparative direction.

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