Skip to main content
Glama
johannesbraeunig

ynab-mcp

Update a YNAB transaction

ynab_update_transaction
Idempotent

Update a YNAB transaction's account, date, amount, payee, category, memo, cleared status, or approved status. Only specified fields are modified.

Instructions

Update a transaction's account, date, amount, payee, category, memo, cleared status, and/or approved status. Only the fields provided are changed — this single tool covers approving a transaction, categorizing it, editing its amount, etc.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dateNoISO 8601 date, e.g. 2026-07-01
memoNo
amountNoAmount in milliunits (1000 = 1.00 in the budget's currency). Positive = inflow, negative = outflow for transactions.
clearedNoThe cleared status of the transaction
approvedNo
payee_idNoExisting YNAB payee id
budget_idYesYNAB budget id, or "last-used" for the most recently used budget
account_idNoMove the transaction to this account
payee_nameNoPayee name; YNAB creates a new payee if none matches. Ignored if payee_id is set.
category_idNoYNAB category id to assign
transaction_idYesYNAB transaction id
Behavior4/5

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

Consistent with annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false). States only provided fields are changed, implying idempotency (matches idempotentHint). No contradictions. Could mention more side effects like payee creation.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose. Efficient use of words.

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?

No output schema mentioned, and no return value description. However, for a mutation tool with rich schema and no output schema, it's minimally adequate.

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 coverage is 82% (high), so baseline 3. Description adds summary of field categories but doesn't elaborate on parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. Adequate.

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?

Clear verb 'Update' with specific resources listed (account, date, amount, etc.). States it's a partial update tool, but could more explicitly differentiate from full-replace updates.

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 sibling tools like ynab_update_payee or ynab_create_transaction. Only says it covers multiple actions (approve, categorize, edit), but not when alternatives are appropriate.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/johannesbraeunig/ynab-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server