avenir-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

List plans

list_plans

Read-onlyIdempotent

Fetches every YNAB plan (budget) tied to the current API key so you can capture the plan ID later calls require. Run it once and reuse the ID.

Instructions

List all YNAB plans accessible with the current API key.

A plan is what YNAB now calls a budget, and what users may still call their budget. Use the plan id in subsequent tool calls. 'last-used' also works, but names whichever plan was last opened in YNAB: with several plans, pass the id. Call it once and keep the id; no other tool reads this list. For what a plan holds, get_monthly_summary gives the month, list_accounts the accounts.

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_plans"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 29, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/openWorld. The description adds real behavioral context beyond them: the 'last-used' alias ambiguity and the fact that this is the sole source of the plan list. It doesn't describe the response shape, but an output schema exists so that's acceptable.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then layered with terminology, id caching, and sibling pointers. Every sentence adds actionable value with no filler.

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 no-param read tool with an output schema and rich annotations, the description supplies everything needed: purpose, id usage, caching advice, and where related data lives (get_monthly_summary, list_accounts).

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

Parameters4/5

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

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is no input to explain and the description correctly says nothing about parameters.

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+resource ('List all YNAB plans') and explicitly disambiguates terminology (plan = budget). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by noting 'no other tool reads this list.'

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly instructs to use the returned plan id in subsequent calls, warns that 'last-used' is ambiguous when multiple plans exist, and says to call once and cache the id. The when-to-use and how-to-use guidance is fully spelled out.

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