actual-mcp

set_budget_amount

Destructive

Set the budgeted amount for a category in a given month. Adjust spending limits by specifying the month, category ID, and amount.

Instructions

Set the budgeted amount for a category in a month. [mutating]

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "month": "<month>",
      "category_id": "<category_id>",
      "amount": "<amount>"
    },
    "name": "set_budget_amount"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`month`	Yes
`amount`	Yes	integer minor units
`category_id`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 7, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds '[mutating]' which is redundant. No disclosure of error handling, side effects, or data persistence beyond the annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise with one sentence plus a tag, no wasted words. However, it could include more useful information without becoming verbose.

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

Completeness2/5

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

No output schema, 3 required parameters with low schema coverage, and no explanation of return values, month format, or error conditions. The description is insufficient for safe invocation.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is only 33% (only 'amount' has minor units description). The tool description adds no extra meaning for 'month' or 'category_id', relying entirely on the schema which lacks detail.

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 clearly states 'Set the budgeted amount for a category in a month', specifying the verb, resource, and scope. It distinguishes from siblings like 'set_budget_carryover'.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites or exclusions. The description is minimal and does not help an agent decide contextually among sibling tools.

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