YNAB MCP Server

List Scheduled Transactions

list_scheduled_transactions

Read-onlyIdempotent

Lists manually-created recurring transactions in a YNAB budget. Auto-imported subscriptions or utilities are excluded; use prior-month history to identify those recurring charges.

Instructions

List all scheduled (recurring) transactions. NOTE: only manually-created recurring entries appear here — auto-imported recurring charges (subscriptions, utilities, insurance) are NOT included. Use prior-month transaction history to identify recurring charge timing instead.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`budgetId`	No	Budget ID (uses default if not provided)
`lastKnowledgeOfServer`	No	Delta request server knowledge. When provided, returns { scheduled_transactions, server_knowledge }.

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 Scheduled Transactions."
```

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

First observedv2.0.0May 28, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already establish readOnly and idempotent behavior. The description adds critical behavioral context beyond those: the returned set excludes auto-imported recurring entries, which materially changes how an agent should interpret results. This prevents a subtle misuse that annotations alone cannot express.

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 compact and front-loaded: it states the core purpose first, then the essential caveat the agent must know, then the fallback behavior. Every sentence carries important information with no filler.

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 rich output schema, 100% parameter documentation, and safety annotations, the description covers the only significant gap: what class of items is actually included. The warning plus alternative makes the tool fully actionable for an agent.

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 100%, and both parameters (budgetId, lastKnowledgeOfServer) already have meaningful descriptions. The tool description does not add parameter-level detail, which is acceptable under the baseline for fully documented schemas.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('List all scheduled (recurring) transactions') and immediately clarifies the exact scope: only manually-created recurring entries. This distinguishes it both from get_scheduled_transaction and from detection of auto-imported recurring charges, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool returns.

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?

The description explicitly says when the tool should NOT be used—for auto-imported recurring charges such as subscriptions, utilities, and insurance—and gives an actionable alternative: use prior-month transaction history to identify those recurring charge timings. This is clear routing guidance.

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