Skip to main content
Glama
ninetails-io

gnucash-mcp

replace_splits

Replace all splits in a transaction with a new set, preserving date, description, currency, and notes; unchanged reconciled legs stay intact, and force handles changed reconciled splits.

Instructions

Replace all splits in a transaction with a new set.

Replace all splits in a transaction with a completely new set. The transaction's currency, description, date, and notes are preserved. New splits must balance to zero.

A new split that reproduces an existing one (same account, amount, and quantity) is an UNCHANGED leg: it keeps the old split's memo (supply a memo to override) and its reconcile state. So recategorizing the expense leg of a reconciled bank transaction is safe — resubmit the bank leg as-is and only the changed leg resets.

Args: guid: Transaction GUID (32-character hex string, or 8+ char prefix) splits: Complete new set of splits. Each split needs: - 'account' (required): Account ref — full path, %short GUID, or full 32-char GUID - 'amount' (required): Value in transaction currency, as a decimal string - 'quantity' (optional): Amount in account's commodity, as a decimal string. Required if account commodity differs from transaction currency. - 'memo' (optional): Split memo force: Required only when the replacement would CHANGE a reconciled split (or remove splits from lots) — unchanged reconciled legs are preserved without it.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
guidYesTransaction GUID (32-char hex or 8+ char prefix)
forceNo
splitsYes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses critical behaviors: splits must balance to zero, unchanged legs preserve memo and reconcile state, and force is required for changing reconciled splits or removing from lots. This is strong behavioral disclosure for a destructive mutation tool, though it doesn't cover what happens on failure or return format.

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?

The description is well-structured with a summary paragraph, behavioral notes, and an Args section. It's somewhat verbose but each section earns its place, particularly the UNCHANGED leg explanation which is genuinely useful. Front-loads the core purpose before details.

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?

Despite having an output schema and only 33% schema coverage, the description thoroughly covers all 3 parameters, the split sub-object semantics, balancing requirements, reconcile-state behavior, and force requirements. It's complete for a complex mutation tool with no annotations.

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?

Schema coverage is only 33% (only guid described), so the description must compensate. It does, providing detailed semantics for splits (account ref formats including full path, %short GUID, full GUID; amount in transaction currency; quantity required when commodity differs; memo override behavior). The description meaningfully extends the sparse schema documentation.

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?

The description clearly states the verb (replace) and resource (all splits in a transaction) and distinguishes this from siblings by specifying it replaces splits with a completely new set. It also states what is preserved (currency, description, date, notes), disambiguating it from related transaction tools.

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 explains when the tool is safe, specifically that resubmitting an unchanged reconciled bank leg keeps its state, making recategorization safe. It also documents the 'force' requirement for when changes would alter reconciled splits. It doesn't explicitly name alternative tools (like update_transaction or assign_split_to_lot) for when not to use this, which prevents a 5.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/ninetails-io/gnucash-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server