monarch-mcp2

Budget Reset Budget

budget_reset_budget

Destructive

Reset a Monarch Money budget for a specified month, clearing or removing existing budget data to start fresh.

Instructions

Reset budget. This may delete, clear, reset, or otherwise remove data.

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": {
      "month": "<month>"
    },
    "name": "budget_reset_budget"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`month`	Yes
`fields`	No	Optional dotted output field paths to return, such as ['id', 'merchant.name', 'category.name'].
`output_mode`	No	Output shape to return. Use summary for compact CLI-style defaults, full for complete structured data without raw, and raw for complete structured data including raw payloads.	summary
`category_ids`	No
`session_path`	No
`category_type`	No
`budget_variability`	No
`overwrite_existing`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 5, 2026

TDQS

D1.8/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

While annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, the description adds only vague language ('may delete, clear, reset, or otherwise remove data') without specifying what data is affected (e.g., budget amounts, categories, rollover settings) or the scope (single month? all categories?).

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness2/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences, but the first is redundant with the name and the second is vague. Lacks front-loading of critical information such as required parameters or effect.

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

Completeness1/5

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

For a destructive tool with 8 parameters and no output schema, the description fails to explain the tool's effect, required inputs, or how optional parameters influence behavior. Completely inadequate for reliable agent invocation.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Schema coverage is only 25% (2 of 8 parameters have descriptions). The description provides no parameter information, leaving agents without guidance on the required 'month' parameter or optional ones like 'overwrite_existing'.

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

Purpose2/5

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

The description 'Reset budget' is almost tautological with the tool name. It does not differentiate from sibling 'budget_clear_budget', and the vague elaboration adds no specificity about what exactly is reset or how it differs from similar operations.

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 like budget_clear_budget or budget_create_budget. No context about prerequisites (e.g., budget existence) or exclusions.

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

Deploy Server