Lunch Money MCP Server

createCategory

Create a new spending or income category in Lunch Money to organize and track financial transactions, with options to customize budget inclusion and categorization hierarchy.

Instructions

Create a new spending or income category

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": {
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "createCategory"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	Yes
`description`	No
`is_income`	No
`exclude_budget`	No
`exclude_from_totals`	No
`category_group_id`	No
`parent_category_id`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jan 28, 2026

TDQS

C2.8/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Create' implies a write operation but lacks details on permissions, side effects, or response format. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 mutation tool with 7 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects, parameter meanings, or usage context, leaving significant gaps.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate but doesn't mention any parameters. It fails to explain the meaning of inputs like 'is_income' or 'category_group_id', leaving all 7 parameters undocumented beyond the schema.

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?

The description clearly states the verb ('Create') and resource ('spending or income category'), making the purpose evident. However, it doesn't differentiate from siblings like 'createBudget' or 'createTag' beyond the resource type, which is why it's not a 5.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'createBudget' or 'createTransaction', nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. It's a basic statement without context.

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