actual-budget-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

update_payee

Idempotent

Rename a payee in Actual Budget to correct mislabeled transactions or standardize merchant names. Provide the current payee name or ID and the new name.

Instructions

Rename a payee.

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": {
      "payee": "<payee>",
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "update_payee"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	Yes	New name for the payee
`payee`	Yes	Payee name or ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.6.1Jun 12, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=true, so the description adds little behavioral context. It does not mention whether renaming cascades to existing transactions, whether the payee must already exist, or any other side effects; the description mostly restates the title.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is a single concise sentence with no filler or redundant phrasing. It is front-loaded with the action, but it is minimal enough that it contributes only basic purpose, not richer guidance.

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 simple two-parameter update tool with full schema coverage and idempotency annotation, the core calling contract is reasonably clear. However, the lack of usage guidance and side-effect context leaves some ambiguity about how renaming a payee affects related data, so it is only minimally complete.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, with both 'payee' and 'name' clearly documented as 'Payee name or ID' and 'New name for the payee'. The description does not need to add parameter details, so the baseline 3 applies.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description 'Rename a payee.' states a specific verb and resource, making the tool's function immediately clear. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_payee and delete_payee by expressing the update semantics directly.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_payee or delete_payee. There are no stated conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the tool name.

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