YNAB MCP Server

List Money Movements

list_money_movements

Read-onlyIdempotent

See the history of budget re-allocations between categories to find out why an assigned amount changed. Read-only list of money movements, including who moved how much from where to where and when.

Instructions

List all money movements — the history of budget re-allocations between categories (who moved how much from where to where, when). Read-only. Use to answer 'why did this category's assigned amount change'; these are budget moves, not transactions. Can be long on old budgets; prefer get_money_movements_by_month for a specific month.

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 Movements."
```
Addedv5.2.0Aug 29, 2026
Removedv5.1.1Jul 21, 2026
First observedv2.0.0May 28, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a performance warning ('can be long on old budgets') and clarifies the semantic distinction from transactions, which is valuable beyond the annotations.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The core purpose is stated first, followed by usage guidance and a performance note. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity, the presence of annotations covering safety, and an output schema, the description fully covers purpose, usage, and performance caveats. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to call it correctly.

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 coverage is 100% with a single optional parameter budgetId that is self-explanatory in the schema. The description does not add parameter-specific guidance, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb 'List' and resource 'money movements' with a clear definition of what they are (history of budget re-allocations) and explicitly distinguishes from transactions. It also names a sibling tool for scoped queries, making it unmistakable.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Provides an explicit use case ('why did this category's assigned amount change') and an explicit exclusion (these are not transactions). It also advises preferring get_money_movements_by_month for a specific month, giving clear routing guidance.

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