py-ynab-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

update_payee

Rename a YNAB payee by supplying its unique ID and a new name. Optionally select a budget or preview changes with a dry run.

Instructions

Update a YNAB payee (rename).

Args: payee_id: Payee UUID. name: New name for the payee. budget_id: Budget ID. Defaults to last-used budget. dry_run: Validate and preview without updating.

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": {
      "payee_id": "<payee_id>",
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "update_payee"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	Yes
`dry_run`	No
`payee_id`	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

A3.6/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states it updates/renames, but lacks details on idempotency, side effects, permissions, error handling, or what happens if the payee doesn't exist.

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: a one-line summary followed by a clean bullet list of arguments. No unnecessary words.

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 tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema, the description is mostly complete. It covers the main behavior and all parameters. However, it could mention error conditions or prerequisites (e.g., payee must exist) for full completeness.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description compensates by explaining each parameter's meaning (e.g., 'Payee UUID', 'New name for the payee', defaults for budget_id, behavior of dry_run). This adds significant value beyond the schema titles.

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 verb 'update' and resource 'payee' with the specific purpose 'rename'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_payee, list_payees, and other update tools.

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. There is no comparison to sibling tools like update_transaction or create_transaction, nor any mention of prerequisites or preferred contexts.

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