arcade-ynab-mcp

by laughnan

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Remote

CreateScheduledTransaction

Ynab_CreateScheduledTransaction

Schedule upcoming or recurring bills, paychecks, and transfers in YNAB by setting a date, amount, and frequency.

Instructions

Schedule an upcoming or recurring transaction (bill, paycheck, transfer).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`date`	Yes	Date of the next occurrence (YYYY-MM-DD), in the future and within 5 years.
`memo`	No	Optional memo.
`amount`	Yes	Amount in currency units. Negative for outflows, positive for inflows.
`plan_id`	No	The YNAB plan (budget) ID. Defaults to 'last-used', the plan the user opened most recently. Use ListPlans to find other plan IDs.
`payee_id`	No	An existing payee ID.
`frequency`	Yes	How often it repeats. 'never' means it happens once.
`account_id`	Yes	The account it will be entered in.
`flag_color`	No	Optional flag color.
`payee_name`	No	Payee name (matches or creates a payee). Ignored if payee_id is given.
`category_id`	No	Category ID, or an empty string for none. Split scheduled transactions aren't supported.
`transfer_account_id`	No	For a scheduled transfer, the OTHER account's ID. Don't combine with a payee.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.3.0Oct 4, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so safety and idempotency are covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond that — no note on duplicate scheduled entries, required permissions, or validation limits (e.g., the 5-year date bound is only in the schema).

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?

A single short sentence with zero waste and the resource front-loaded. It is efficient, though the brevity is closer to under-specification than to disciplined conciseness for an 11-parameter creation tool.

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?

Given full schema coverage and an output schema, the description need not explain parameters or return values, so the core calling information is available. However, for a mutation tool with four required fields and transfer/payee interaction rules, a sentence about distinguishing scheduled creation from immediate creation would round it out.

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 11 well-documented parameters including enum values, so the schema carries the full semantic load. The description contributes no parameter meaning of its own; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb+resource ('Schedule ... transaction') and names concrete use cases (bill, paycheck, transfer), which separates it from Ynab_CreateTransaction's one-off creation. It does not explicitly name that sibling, but the recurring/upcoming framing is unambiguous about what gets created.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of when to prefer Ynab_CreateTransaction instead, and no stated prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing account or payee). A reader can infer intent from 'recurring', but the routing decision between the two creation tools is left entirely to inference.

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