Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
YNAB MCP Server

YNAB MCP Server

by oliverames
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

Get Transaction

get_transaction
Read-onlyIdempotent

Fetch a YNAB transaction by ID to inspect its details and distinguish missing IDs from deleted scheduled transactions.

Instructions

Get transactionId (accepts uuid_YYYY-MM-DD). Deleted matched row returns {resource_type:scheduled_transaction,reason:composite_id_with_no_matched_transaction,scheduled_transaction,requested_id}. Other missing IDs: resource_not_found.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
budgetIdNo
transactionIdYesTransaction ID

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changedv6.1.0
    • changedInput schema / $schema
      Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"
    • removedInput schema / properties / budgetId / description
      Removed value: -"Budget ID (uses default if not provided)"
    • changedOutput schema / $schema
      Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"
  2. Changed1 schema field changedv5.4.0
    • removedOutput schema / properties / result / description
      Removed value: -"Structured result returned by Get Transaction."
  3. Changed1 schema field changedv5.1.1
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+  "additionalProperties": false,
+  "properties": {
+    "result": {
+      "description": "Structured result returned by Get Transaction."
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "result"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}
  4. First observedv2.0.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint, so the bar is lower, and the description adds genuine value by disclosing error semantics: a deleted matched scheduled transaction returns a composite_id_with_no_matched_transaction payload while other missing IDs yield resource_not_found. That tells the agent how to interpret non-success responses, which annotations cannot. It does not cover budget scoping or auth, keeping it short of a 5.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

It is short and front-loads the ID format, which is good, but the prose is telegraphic and grammatically fragmented, making the error-case sentence hard to parse. Every sentence does carry information, but the structure is rough.

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

Completeness3/5

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 composite-ID format plus error taxonomy are covered. However, budgetId scoping and which error applies to which situation are only partially addressed, leaving a moderate gap for a 2-parameter getter.

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 50% (the transactionId description is just "Transaction ID"), so the description must compensate, and it does by revealing the accepted composite format uuid_YYYY-MM-DD. The budgetId parameter is left unexplained in both schema and description, which caps it below 5.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

"Get transactionId" conveys retrieval of a single transaction by ID, but the phrasing is awkward (it reads as fetching the ID itself rather than the transaction) and it never distinguishes this from siblings like get_transactions or search_transactions. The purpose is inferable but not stated with a clean verb+resource.

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 statement of when to use this versus get_transactions (list) or search_transactions (query-based lookup), which are the most likely confusions for an agent. The single-record nature is only implied by the singular parameter.

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