list_payee_locationsList GPS locations recorded by YNAB mobile transactions, which may be empty; use get_payee_locations_by_payee to narrow results by payee.
List GPS locations recorded by YNAB mobile transactions; may be empty. Scope with get_payee_locations_by_payee.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| budgetId | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v6.1.0Input schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"Input schema / properties / budgetId / descriptionRemoved value: -"Budget ID (uses default if not provided)"Output schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"v5.4.0Output schema / properties / result / descriptionRemoved value: -"Structured result returned by List Payee Locations."v5.1.1Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "result": {
+ "description": "Structured result returned by List Payee Locations."
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "result"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish that this is a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: it explains the data source (YNAB mobile transactions) and warns that the result may be empty.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the alternative-tool guidance follows immediately.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read-only list tool with an output schema and strong annotations, the description covers purpose, data origin, empty-result expectation, and the relevant alternative. The only notable gap is the undocumented budgetId parameter.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has one parameter, budgetId, but schema description coverage is 0% and the description never mentions budgetId or its meaning. Because the schema provides no parameter documentation, the description should compensate but does not.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
It names a specific verb and resource: list GPS locations recorded by YNAB mobile transactions. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling scoping tool get_payee_locations_by_payee, so an agent can tell which one to use without opening either schema.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives clear usage context and names the alternative for scoped results: 'Scope with get_payee_locations_by_payee.' It does not add explicit when-not conditions beyond that alternative, but the routing signal is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.