Skip to main content
Glama
ninetails-io

gnucash-mcp

by ninetails-io
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

update_scheduled_transaction

DestructiveIdempotent

Update a scheduled transaction's enable status, end date, or notes for future occurrences. Adjust recurring rules precisely without recreating the schedule.

Instructions

Update a scheduled transaction.

Args: guid: Scheduled transaction GUID (or 8+ char prefix). enabled: Enable or disable. end_date: Three-state field for the schedule's end date.

    - Omit (or pass ``null``): leave unchanged.
    - Pass ``"YYYY-MM-DD"``: set to that date.
    - Pass ``""`` (empty string): clear the existing
      end date back to "no end" (open-ended schedule).

    The empty-string sentinel exists because MCP tool
    schemas don't easily express "set to null" as a
    distinct value from "no change supplied" — both
    arrive as Python ``None``. Empty-string is the
    explicit "clear it" signal.
notes: Instantiation notes applied to transactions
    created from this schedule going forward (existing
    transactions untouched). Same three-state
    convention as end_date: text to set, ``""`` to
    clear, omit to leave unchanged.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
guidYesScheduled transaction GUID (32-char hex or 8+ char prefix)
notesNo
enabledNo
end_dateNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.4.2

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, and idempotentHint=true, lowering the bar for behavioral disclosure. The description adds useful context about the three-state end_date semantics, the empty-string sentinel, and the fact that notes changes affect only future transactions, leaving existing transactions untouched. It doesn't elaborate on the destructive nature of updates, but the annotation already signals that.

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 organized with a clear opening and per-parameter details in a consistent, scannable structure. The extended explanation of the empty-string sentinel adds length but is genuinely necessary to prevent incorrect calls where null and empty string would otherwise be ambiguous. No sentences are wasted, though it could be tightened slightly.

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?

Given the four parameters, the rich parameter semantics, and the presence of an output schema, the description covers all the information needed to invoke the tool correctly. It explains side effects around scheduled vs. existing transactions. It doesn't describe when to choose this tool over siblings, but that gap is more about usage guidance than invocation completeness.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema description coverage is only 25%, so the description carries nearly the full burden for parameters. It thoroughly explains guid prefixes, enabled, the exact three-state behavior of end_date (omit/null, date string, empty string), and the same convention for notes. This is precisely the semantic detail an agent needs and cannot derive from the bare schema.

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 and resource: 'Update a scheduled transaction.' It then enumerates the updatable fields (guid, enabled, end_date, notes), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It doesn't explicitly name sibling tools to differentiate, but the verb alone distinguishes it from create/list/delete scheduled transaction siblings.

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 guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_scheduled_transaction, delete_scheduled_transaction, or create_transaction_from_scheduled. The intended usage is only implied by the name and description, with no explicit context, exclusions, or alternatives.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools