Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
ynab-mcp

ynab-mcp

by koonn
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

list_transactions

Retrieve raw transaction data from YNAB budgets with optional filters by date, category, or transaction type for in-depth analysis.

Instructions

取引明細を返す(深掘り用の生データ)。日付は YYYY-MM-DD 形式。

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "list_transactions"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
typeNo
budget_idNo
since_dateNo
until_dateNo
category_idNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.4/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions returning raw data and date format, but does not state that it is a read-only operation, whether it lists all transactions or filters, or any side effects. The 'raw data for deep dive' hint is useful but insufficient.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is very short (2 sentences), which is concise but lacks necessary detail. It is front-loaded with the main purpose but misses parameter descriptions. Conciseness at the expense of completeness is not ideal.

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?

The tool has 5 parameters with no schema descriptions and minimal description coverage. Although there is an output schema, the description is too sparse to be complete. Important context such as required filters, pagination, or limits is missing.

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

Parameters1/5

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 for parameter meaning. It only mentions date format for the date parameters but does not describe type, budget_id, since_date, until_date, or category_id. No parameter semantics are provided.

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 tool returns transaction details for deep dive analysis, and the sibling tools are distinct (categories, budgets, period summary), so purpose is clear. However, it does not explicitly use a specific verb like 'list' but 'returns' is acceptable.

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 this tool versus alternatives. No mention of prerequisites or context. The description does not specify that this is for getting raw data, but doesn't explain when to use it vs other tools.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools