actual-mcp

set_budget_carryover

Destructive

Enable or disable monthly carryover for a category budget, controlling if leftover funds roll over.

Instructions

Enable or disable carryover 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>",
      "enabled": "<enabled>"
    },
    "name": "set_budget_carryover"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`month`	Yes
`enabled`	Yes
`category_id`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 7, 2026

TDQS

C2.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

The annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds a '[mutating]' tag, but this is redundant. It does not disclose any additional side effects, such as impact on future months, required permissions, or reversibility. For a tool marked as destructive, more context is expected.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is extremely brief—one sentence plus a tag. While concise, it omits important details about parameters and usage. It front-loads the core action but lacks structure that would help the agent quickly grasp all necessary information.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (three required params, no output schema, destructive annotations), the description is incomplete. It does not explain what carryover means in the context of budgeting, the expected month format, or the consequences of enabling/disabling it. The agent needs additional context to use the tool correctly.

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

Parameters1/5

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

The input schema has three parameters (month, enabled, category_id) with 0% description coverage. The description does not elaborate on any of these parameters, leaving the agent to guess expected formats (e.g., month string format) or valid values for category_id.

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 the tool's action: enable or disable carryover for a specific category in a month. It uses a specific verb and resource, and the mention of 'carryover' distinguishes it from sibling tools like set_budget_amount.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, nor does it explain scenarios where carryover should be enabled or disabled. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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