Skip to main content
Glama
partymola

monzo-mcp

by partymola
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

monzo_sync

Fetches Monzo transactions, balances, and pots into a local cache, handling pagination and deduplication. Supports backfill of up to 11 months of history within the SCA window.

Instructions

Sync transactions, balances, and pots from the Monzo API into the local cache.

Fetches up to 11 months of history (within SCA window) or falls back to the last-synced timestamp / 90 days. Handles pagination and auth-hold deduplication automatically.

Args: account_type: "personal", "joint", or None to sync all accounts since: Optional ISO date ("2026-01-01") or datetime ("2026-01-01T14:30:00Z") to start the backfill from, overriding last-sync resumption. Reaching beyond ~90 days only works inside the post-auth SCA window.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
sinceNo
account_typeNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.9.0
    • changedInput schema / properties / account_type / anyOf
      Previous value: -[
-  {
-    "type": "string"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]New value: +[
+  {
+    "enum": [
+      "personal",
+      "joint"
+    ],
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "null"
+  }
+]
  2. Changed1 schema field changedv0.2.1
    • addedInput schema / properties / since
      Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "title": "Since"
+}
  3. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently covers the 11-month fetch window, the fallback to last-synced timestamp or 90 days, automatic pagination, auth-hold deduplication, and the SCA constraint on deep backfills. It does not address side effects on the local cache or auth prerequisites in detail, but it is substantially transparent.

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 well-structured with a purpose statement, a behavior summary, and a clear parameter list. Every sentence adds substantive value, and the most important constraints are front-loaded. There is no redundant restatement of schema information.

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?

The description is complete for a tool with two optional parameters and an output schema. It explains what the tool fetches, the sync window behavior, pagination/deduplication, parameter semantics, and edge cases around the SCA window. Return values are reasonably covered by the output schema, so no extra explanation is needed.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does. It explains account_type values ('personal', 'joint', or None to sync all accounts') and gives precise since formats (ISO date or datetime) plus its override behavior and SCA limitation. This goes well beyond the bare schema.

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 ('Sync') and resource ('transactions, balances, and pots from the Monzo API into the local cache'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling read/list/search tools. It also adds concrete scope details like history depth, pagination, and deduplication.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies usage for refreshing or backfilling a local cache, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over sibling tools like monzo_list_transactions or monzo_search_transactions. It gives helpful context around backfill windows and last-sync resumption, but no exclusions or alternative routing.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools