Firefly III MCP Server

List Firefly III Budgets

firefly_list_budgets

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve all budgets with auto-budget configurations from Firefly III to track spending limits and automated allocation rules.

Instructions

List all budgets with their auto-budget configuration.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "firefly_list_budgets"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No	Max results
`page`	No	Page number

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.1Apr 7, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations cover safety (readOnly, non-destructive) and idempotency. The description adds value by disclosing that auto-budget configuration details are returned, addressing the gap of having no output schema. However, it omits pagination behavior and rate limit implications.

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?

Extremely concise at 7 words with zero filler. The action and scope are front-loaded, and the mention of 'auto-budget configuration' efficiently signals return value content.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the simple pagination schema and rich annotations, the description adequately covers the core purpose. However, without an output schema, it should mention that results are paginated or describe the response structure more fully.

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage with clear labels ('Max results', 'Page number'). The description adds no parameter-specific context, which is acceptable given the schema completeness, meeting the baseline expectation.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Clearly states the action 'List' and resource 'budgets', and specifies that 'auto-budget configuration' is included in the returned data. The verb distinguishes it from sibling mutation tools (create/update/delete), though it could explicitly contrast with them.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings, when pagination is needed, or prerequisites for invocation. Lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use criteria.

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