Monarch Money MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Get Transactions

get_transactions

Read-only

Retrieve a paginated list of transactions from Monarch Money, filtering by date range, account, category, tags, and attributes like pending or recurring.

Instructions

Fetch one page of transactions.

Args: limit: Maximum transactions to request (default: 100). offset: Transactions to skip for pagination. start_date: Inclusive start; accepts ISO dates, 'last month', or '30 days ago'. Without end_date, the end defaults to today. end_date: Inclusive end, with the same date formats. Without start_date, the start defaults to the first day of the end date's month. account_id: Account ID from get_accounts. category_id: Category ID from get_transaction_categories. tag_ids: Comma-separated tag IDs. has_attachments: True for transactions with attachments, False for those without. has_notes: True for transactions with notes, False for those without. hidden_from_reports: True for hidden transactions, False for visible ones. is_split: True for split transactions, False for non-split transactions. is_recurring: True for recurring transactions, False for non-recurring ones. is_pending: True for pending transactions, False for posted transactions. verbose: False returns compact fields; True preserves the full API objects.

Boolean filters default to None (no restriction). Results contain transactions, count (this page only), and verbose. Use offset to fetch further pages.

Compact fields: id, date, amount, merchant, plaidName, category, categoryId, account, needsReview; pending appears only when true, notes only when nonempty. Amounts are negative for expenses and positive for income. Use id for updates. merchant is the display name; plaidName preserves the original statement text. category and account are names, not nested objects.

Verbose results retain nested merchant/category/account objects and upstream fields such as hideFromReports, reviewStatus, isSplitTransaction, isRecurring, attachments, tags, and timestamps.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No
`offset`	No
`tag_ids`	No
`verbose`	No
`end_date`	No
`is_split`	No
`has_notes`	No
`account_id`	No
`is_pending`	No
`start_date`	No
`category_id`	No
`is_recurring`	No
`has_attachments`	No
`hidden_from_reports`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`count`	Yes
`verbose`	Yes
`transactions`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedv0.5.0Sep 24, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / is_pending

Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "title": "Is Pending"
+}

First observedv0.3.2May 30, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only mark readOnlyHint=true; the description adds substantial behavior: pagination means one page and count is page-only, compact vs verbose shapes, pending/notes only appear when relevant, sign conventions for amounts, and differences between merchant/plaidName and category/account names. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Length is justified by 14 parameters and two return modes; content is organized into Args, result overview, compact field list, and verbose behavior. The opening sentence is front-loaded and nearly every sentence adds operational detail without fluff.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a 14-parameter tool with no schema descriptions, this is comprehensive: all parameter formats, defaults, output fields, pagination, and cross-references are covered. An agent can call it correctly without external lookups; output schema existence further lowers the burden.

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

Parameters5/5

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

With 0% schema coverage, the description carries all parameter meaning and does so thoroughly: date formats and defaults, foreign-key sourcing from get_accounts/get_transaction_categories, comma-separated tag_ids, each boolean filter's default None, and verbose behavior. It fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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?

Description opens with 'Fetch one page of transactions' – a specific verb and resource, and the filter list makes the operation unambiguous. It doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling search_transactions, so it misses the top score for sibling differentiation.

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?

Gives solid operational context (pagination with offset, date defaults, filter semantics) but never says when to choose this over search_transactions or other transaction views. There is no explicit when/when-not or alternative routing, so usage is only implied.

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