arcade-ynab-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

UpdateTransactions

Ynab_UpdateTransactions

Idempotent

Apply the same changes to one or more YNAB transactions in a single request. Only the fields you specify change, enabling batch approvals, recategorization, clearing, flagging, or memo fixes.

Instructions

Apply the same changes to one or more transactions in a single request, e.g. approve a batch, recategorize, mark cleared, flag, or fix a memo. Only the fields you pass change.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`date`	No	Change the date (YYYY-MM-DD).
`memo`	No	Replace the memo. Pass an empty string to clear it.
`amount`	No	Change the amount in currency units. Only allowed when updating a single transaction; split amounts can't be changed.
`cleared`	No	Set the cleared status.
`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.
`approved`	No	Set approved (true) or unapproved (false).
`payee_id`	No	Change the payee to this existing payee, or pass an empty string to remove the payee.
`flag_color`	No	Set the flag color, or 'none' to remove it.
`payee_name`	No	Change the payee by name (matches or creates a payee).
`category_id`	No	Recategorize, or pass an empty string to make it uncategorized. Not allowed on split transactions.
`transaction_ids`	Yes	IDs of the transactions to change (1-100).

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

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds a genuinely important behavioral trait not present in structured fields: partial-update semantics ('Only the fields you pass change'). It omits auth/plan-scope caveats and error behavior on splits, leaving some room.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the operation and scope, followed by the partial-update rule. No padding or restated title.

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

Completeness4/5

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

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the batch limit and per-field constraints live in the schema. The description covers operation, scope, and partial-update behavior, but says nothing about failure modes (e.g., mixed split transactions in a batch) for an 11-param mutation tool.

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%, so every parameter is already documented — including split constraints on amount/category_id and the empty-string clearing conventions. The description's use-case list loosely maps to fields but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb plus resource ('apply the same changes to one or more transactions in a single request') and immediately signals the batch/patch semantics. An agent can distinguish this from CreateTransaction, UpdateScheduledTransaction, and DeleteTransaction without opening any schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description enumerates concrete use cases — 'approve a batch, recategorize, mark cleared, flag, or fix a memo' — which tells the agent when this tool is the right choice. It stops short of naming alternatives (e.g., UpdateScheduledTransaction for scheduled transactions), so it does not meet the explicit when-not bar.

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