YNAB MCP Server

List Money Movement Groups

list_money_movement_groups

Read-onlyIdempotent

List batches of related money movements, such as multi-category re-allocations, to see how funds were moved together. Read-only grouping view for analyzing budget activity.

Instructions

List all money movement groups — batches of related money movements applied together (e.g. one multi-category re-allocation). Read-only. Join to list_money_movements rows via money_movement_group_id.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`budgetId`	No	Budget ID (uses default if not provided)

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedv5.4.0Sep 15, 2026
- removedOutput schema / properties / result / description
```
Removed value: -"Structured result returned by List Money Movement Groups."
```

Changed1 schema field changedv5.1.1Jul 21, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+  "additionalProperties": false,
+  "properties": {
+    "result": {
+      "description": "Structured result returned by List Money Movement Groups."
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "result"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedv2.0.0May 28, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, and the description explicitly states 'Read-only', which matches. It adds semantic context by defining what a money movement group represents and how to join to movements, which goes beyond the structured fields. It does not cover pagination or ordering, but the output schema exists and the safety profile is clear, so this is solid coverage.

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?

The description is two concise sentences, with the primary action ('List all money movement groups') front-loaded, followed by a clarifying definition and a join hint. There is zero redundant phrasing; every clause earns its place.

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?

For a read-only list tool with an output schema and annotations covering safety, the description is largely complete: it defines the domain concept, states read-only behavior, and explains how to connect to related data. The only notable gap is not mentioning the sibling get_money_movement_groups_by_month, which could be the intended tool when filtering by month; however, this is a minor omission given the overall clarity.

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?

The schema provides 100% coverage for the single optional parameter budgetId, including its description ('Budget ID (uses default if not provided)'). The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter—it does not even mention budgetId. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema already documents the parameter completely.

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 'List' and the resource 'all money movement groups', and defines what a group is (batches of related money movements applied together). It also gives a concrete example (multi-category re-allocation), which distinguishes it from list_money_movements by implying the join relationship. This is a specific, unambiguous purpose.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description explains how to relate this tool to list_money_movements via the join key, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus get_money_movement_groups_by_month or other sibling tools. The usage context is implied (general list-all), but no explicit alternatives or exclusions are given, so it stops short of full guidance.

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