YNAB MCP Server

Search Payees

search_payees

Read-onlyIdempotent

Find YNAB payees by partial name to retrieve unique payee IDs. Matching is case-insensitive and handles HTML-escaped names, so 'B&H' finds 'B&H Photo Video'.

Instructions

Search payees by partial name match (case-insensitive). Matching ignores HTML entity escaping, so 'B&H' finds a payee YNAB stores as 'B&H Photo Video'. Useful for finding payee IDs. Unlike search_categories this is a single substring match, not a tokenized OR — search one distinctive word at a time.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`query`	Yes	Partial payee name to search for
`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 Search 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 Search Payees."
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "result"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

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=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: case-insensitive matching, HTML entity unescaping (with a concrete example), and the substring-vs-tokenized distinction. No contradiction with 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?

Three sentences with no filler. The core behavior and the most important caveat (HTML entity handling) are front-loaded, followed by a usage note and a sibling comparison. 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?

With annotations covering the read-only/idempotent safety profile and an output schema present, the description sufficiently covers matching behavior, usage guidance, and the key sibling distinction. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to call this tool correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% and both parameters have basic descriptions. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining the query semantics (partial, case-insensitive, HTML-entity-ignoring) and advising to search one word at a time. It doesn't clarify budgetId's default behavior beyond the schema, but the schema already says 'uses default if not provided'.

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 ('Search payees'), a resource ('payees'), and a precise matching behavior (partial, case-insensitive, HTML-entity-ignoring). It explicitly differentiates from the sibling search_categories by contrasting substring match vs tokenized OR, so an agent can select it correctly without inspecting the schema.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description says the tool is 'useful for finding payee IDs' and gives a concrete usage tip ('search one distinctive word at a time'), plus contrasts with search_categories. It doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or list alternatives beyond the one sibling, but the context is clear and actionable.

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