Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Quicken Mac MCP

Quicken Mac MCP

by dweekly
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

search_payees

Find payees by name using case-insensitive matching, returning each payee's name and transaction count sorted by frequency.

Instructions

Search payees by name (case-insensitive LIKE match). Returns payee name and total transaction count, sorted by frequency.

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": {
      "query": "<query>"
    },
    "name": "search_payees"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNo
queryYesSearch term for payee name (LIKE match)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.7.0

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; it does disclose the match algorithm, return fields, and sort order, which implies a safe read. It omits practical behavior such as a default or maximum value for limit, whether results are truncated, and whether matching is anchored or substring-only.

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 sentences, zero filler, with the matching semantics and result shape front-loaded before any secondary detail.

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 two-parameter search tool without an output schema, the description usefully covers the return shape and ordering. The unresolved limit parameter and the lack of any guidance on result volume or truncation leave a meaningful gap.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is only 50%: query is documented in the schema, and the description adds only the 'case-insensitive' nuance. The limit parameter has no description, no default, and no bounds in either the schema or the description, so an agent must guess its behavior.

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 specific verb and resource ('Search payees by name') plus the exact matching semantics (case-insensitive LIKE) and what comes back (name, transaction count, frequency sort). The resource is distinct from siblings like list_accounts or query_transactions, though the description never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the tool for finding a payee by partial name, but there is no statement of when to prefer it over query_transactions or list_categories, and no note about what happens with zero matches or very short queries.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools