Quicken Mac MCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

query_transactions

Filter Quicken transactions by date, amount, category, payee, or account to review spending, returning one row per split entry.

Instructions

Query Quicken transactions with flexible filters. Returns one row per split entry — a single transaction may appear multiple times if it has multiple category splits.

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": "query_transactions"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No
`category`	No
`end_date`	No
`max_amount`	No
`min_amount`	No
`start_date`	No
`payee_search`	No
`account_names`	No
`account_types`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.7.0Nov 12, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one genuinely non-obvious trait: results are one row per split entry, so transactions can appear multiple times. It says nothing about default ordering, pagination, result caps, or permissions, which are material for a 9-filter query tool.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the critical split-row caveat. No filler or redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 9-parameter tool with no annotations, no output schema, and zero schema description coverage, the definition is thin: it never explains parameter semantics or defaults. The split-entry note is valuable but does not compensate for the undocumented input surface.

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% and there are 9 parameters, so the description should explain them; it instead offers only "flexible filters" without defining any parameter's meaning, format, or interaction (e.g., date strings, amount ranges, account_types values). Only the return-shape note indirectly helps interpret output, not inputs.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a concrete verb and resource ("Query Quicken transactions") and adds scope via "flexible filters." It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings such as raw_query or spending_by_category, so an agent must infer that this is the row-level transaction listing.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance: no mention of when to prefer this over raw_query or the aggregate spending tools, and no prerequisites. The only hint is the title-like phrase "flexible filters," which does not tell the agent how to choose.

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

Deploy Server