py-ynab-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

list_accounts

List all YNAB budget accounts and their balances. Provide a budget ID to view a specific budget, or omit it to use your default budget.

Instructions

List all accounts for a YNAB budget with balances.

Args: budget_id: Budget ID to list accounts for. If not provided, uses the default budget.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "list_accounts"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`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

A3.5/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions default budget behavior ('If not provided, uses the default budget.') but fails to disclose other traits like idempotency, read-only nature, error handling, or response format beyond 'with balances'. Minimal transparency.

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 extremely concise: two sentences and a parameter description. No wasted words, and all sentences contribute value. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the core 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?

For a simple list tool with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers core functionality and the default behavior. However, it misses details like expected output structure (though output schema exists), error conditions, or required permissions. Adequate but has 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?

The description adds significant meaning to the single parameter 'budget_id' by explaining it is a 'Budget ID' and specifying default behavior. Since the input schema has no descriptions (0% coverage), the description effectively compensates, though examples or type constraints could further enhance clarity.

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 purpose: 'List all accounts for a YNAB budget with balances.' It specifies the verb 'list', the resource 'accounts', and the context 'for a YNAB budget', including the nuance 'with balances'. This is specific and distinct from sibling tools like 'get_account' (single account) and others.

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?

The description does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'get_account' or other list tools. No explicit context on usage scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions is given.

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