YNAB MCP Server

List Payees

list_payees

Read-onlyIdempotent

Lists YNAB payee IDs and transfer account IDs so transactions use valid transfer payee IDs; use search_payees for name lookup instead of invented Transfer names.

Instructions

List payee IDs and transfer_account_id. Use transfer payee IDs, never invented Transfer names. Prefer search_payees for name lookup.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`budgetId`	No
`freshness`	No	fresh (default) reads YNAB. cached uses a session-isolated 30-second cache; complete means its reported coverage, which expands for older requested dates. Reports freshness; caller delta cursors bypass retention.
`projection`	No	Output fields: full (default) or lean IDs, values and essential status/link fields. Splits retain child IDs and amounts.
`includeFreshness`	No	Return an envelope with freshness/coverage metadata even on a fresh read.
`lastKnowledgeOfServer`	No	Delta cursor; returns { payees, server_knowledge }.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed7 schema fields changedv6.1.0Oct 25, 2026

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)"

addedInput schema / properties / freshness

Added value: +{
+  "description": "fresh (default) reads YNAB. cached uses a session-isolated 30-second cache; complete means its reported coverage, which expands for older requested dates. Reports freshness; caller delta cursors bypass retention.",
+  "enum": [
+    "fresh",
+    "cached"
+  ],
+  "type": "string"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / includeFreshness

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Return an envelope with freshness/coverage metadata even on a fresh read.",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}

changedInput schema / properties / lastKnowledgeOfServer / description

Previous value: -"Delta request server knowledge. When provided, returns { payees, server_knowledge }."New value: +"Delta cursor; returns { payees, server_knowledge }."

addedInput schema / properties / projection

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Output fields: full (default) or lean IDs, values and essential status/link fields. Splits retain child IDs and amounts.",
+  "enum": [
+    "lean",
+    "full"
+  ],
+  "type": "string"
+}

changedOutput schema / $schema

Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"

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

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 Payees."
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "result"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedv2.0.0May 28, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description contributes domain-specific behavior beyond that: payee IDs (especially transfer payees) must be resolved from real data rather than fabricated names. It does not mention the 30-second cache or delta cursor behavior, but those live in the schema, so this is a modest gap rather than a missing disclosure.

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 short sentences with zero filler, and the core scoping statement plus the sibling routing advice are both front-loaded. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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 zero-required-param read tool with rich annotations, a detailed schema and an output schema, the description covers the essential calling constraint and the sibling rivalry. The only omission is guidance on when to prefer fresh versus cached reads or to use the delta cursor, which the schema handles adequately but not in a task-oriented way.

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 description coverage is 80%, so freshness, projection, includeFreshness and lastKnowledgeOfServer are already well documented in the schema and the baseline is 3. The description adds only the notion that transfer_account_id is part of the returned ID set, which is marginal value over structured fields.

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 and resource ('List payee IDs and transfer_account_id'), including the exact fields returned, so the agent knows what it gets without opening the schema. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling search_payees, making the two tools separable at a glance.

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?

Names the alternative explicitly ('Prefer search_payees for name lookup') with the condition that selects it, and adds an exclusion rule ('never invented Transfer names') that prevents a known failure mode. Both when-to-use-an-alternative and a hard constraint are present.

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

Deploy Server