Lunch Money MCP Server

createRecurringItem

Adds recurring expenses or income items to Lunch Money with customizable frequency, amounts, and categories for automated financial tracking.

Instructions

Create a new recurring expense or income item

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": {
      "amount": "<amount>"
    },
    "name": "createRecurringItem"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`payee`	No
`amount`	Yes
`currency`	No
`category_id`	No
`notes`	No
`account_id`	No
`tag_id`	No
`frequency`	No
`flow`	No
`start_date`	No
`end_date`	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 full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this creates items but doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, whether the creation is idempotent, what happens on validation errors, or what the response looks like. For a mutation tool with 11 parameters, this is insufficient.

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 that gets straight to the point with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a tool with a clear primary function.

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 complex mutation tool with 11 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the tool's behavior, parameter meanings, return values, or how it differs from similar tools in the sibling set.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage for 11 parameters, the description provides no information about any parameters. It doesn't explain what 'payee', 'amount', 'frequency', 'flow', or other fields mean, their formats, or constraints beyond what the basic schema types indicate.

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 action ('Create') and resource ('new recurring expense or income item'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'createTransaction' or 'createBudget' beyond specifying 'recurring' items.

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 'createTransaction' or 'createBudget'. There's no mention of prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or exclusions for non-recurring items.

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