py-ynab-mcp

by duganth

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Remote

list_scheduled_transactions

List all scheduled transactions for a YNAB budget, showing frequency, next date, amount, payee, and category for each.

Instructions

List all scheduled transactions for a YNAB budget.

Returns each scheduled transaction with its frequency, next date, amount, payee, and category.

Args: budget_id: Budget ID. 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_scheduled_transactions"
  }
}

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

B3.2/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided. The description does not disclose behavioral traits such as pagination, filtering, authorization requirements, or limits. It only states returns frequency, next date, etc., but not how the list is ordered or if there are any restrictions.

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?

Concise, front-loaded main sentence, followed by a clear bullet list of return fields. The Args section is efficient. No unnecessary text.

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 an output schema exists, the description sufficiently lists the return fields. However, it lacks guidance on distinguishing from sibling list tools and does not mention any pagination or filtering, which would be important for completeness.

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: 'budget_id: Budget ID. If not provided, uses the default budget.' This clarifies the default behavior beyond the schema's type and default.

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?

Clearly states the verb 'list', the resource 'scheduled transactions', and the scope 'for a YNAB budget'. It differentiates from 'get_scheduled_transaction' (single) and 'list_transactions' (non-scheduled).

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like 'get_scheduled_transaction' or 'list_transactions'. Does not 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.