Ghostfolio MCP Server

by mhajder

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Remote

Create Activity

create_activity

Create a single new transaction/activity.

Instructions

Create a single new transaction/activity.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`fee`	No	Optional fee amount
`date`	Yes	Date in ISO 8601 format (e.g. 2026-05-09T00:00:00.000Z)
`tags`	No	Optional list of tag IDs to attach to this activity (from get_tags). Omit for no tags.
`type`	Yes	Type of activity: BUY, SELL, DIVIDEND, INTEREST, FEE, LIABILITY
`symbol`	Yes	Symbol profile ID or actual ticker symbol
`comment`	No	Optional comment
`currency`	Yes	Currency code for the transaction
`quantity`	Yes	Number of shares/units
`account_id`	Yes	The account ID where this activity will be recorded
`unit_price`	Yes	Price per unit
`data_source`	Yes	Data source (e.g., 'YAHOO', 'COINGECKO', 'MANUAL')

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedv1.8.0Oct 22, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / tags

Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "items": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "description": "Optional list of tag IDs to attach to this activity (from get_tags). Omit for no tags."
+}

changedInput schema / properties / type / description

Previous value: -"Type of activity: BUY, SELL, DIVIDEND, INTEREST, FEE, ITEM, LIABILITY"New value: +"Type of activity: BUY, SELL, DIVIDEND, INTEREST, FEE, LIABILITY"

First observedv1.5.0Jul 17, 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, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the write/non-idempotent profile is covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond that – no mention that repeated calls create duplicate activities, no validation rules tying fields to the activity type, no permission or account-ownership requirements.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It is efficient, though its brevity is close to under-specification for an 8-required-parameter mutation tool rather than genuine tightness.

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?

For a mutation with 8 required parameters, an output schema, and type-dependent semantics (e.g. how fields apply to DIVIDEND vs BUY vs FEE), the description says nothing about valid field combinations or what a successful creation returns or affects. The structured fields cover definitions but not usage correctness.

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 all 11 parameters including type, symbol, date, and data_source are documented in the schema itself. The description contributes no additional meaning, which is the baseline 3 when the schema carries the full load.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Create a single new transaction/activity.' The word 'single' implicitly distinguishes it from bulk paths like import_transactions, but no sibling tool is named to make the distinction explicit.

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 versus update_activity (for existing records) or import_transactions (for bulk loads). An agent must infer from sibling names that this is the one-at-a-time creation path.

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