Skip to main content
Glama
ninetails-io

gnucash-mcp

replace_splits

DestructiveIdempotent

Replace a transaction's splits with a new balanced set while preserving its date, description, and currency. Unchanged reconciled legs keep their state; use force only when changing reconciled splits.

Instructions

Replace all splits in a transaction with a new set.

Replace all splits in a transaction with a completely new set. The transaction's currency, description, date, and notes are preserved. New splits must balance to zero.

A new split that reproduces an existing one (same account, amount, and quantity) is an UNCHANGED leg: it keeps the old split's memo (supply a memo to override) and its reconcile state. So recategorizing the expense leg of a reconciled bank transaction is safe — resubmit the bank leg as-is and only the changed leg resets.

Args: guid: Transaction GUID (32-character hex string, or 8+ char prefix) splits: Complete new set of splits. Each split needs: - 'account' (required): Account ref — full path, %short GUID, or full 32-char GUID - 'amount' (required): Value in transaction currency, as a decimal string - 'quantity' (optional): Amount in account's commodity, as a decimal string. Required if account commodity differs from transaction currency. - 'memo' (optional): Split memo force: Required only when the replacement would CHANGE a reconciled split (or remove splits from lots) — unchanged reconciled legs are preserved without it.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
guidYesTransaction GUID (32-char hex or 8+ char prefix)
forceNo
splitsYes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. First observedv1.4.2

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already mark the tool as destructive and idempotent, and the description adds substantial behavioral detail: unchanged legs keep memo and reconcile state, changed reconciled legs require force, splits must balance to zero, and lot removal is gated by force. This goes far beyond annotations and clearly discloses mutation semantics.

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 well-structured with an Args section and most sentences add value. However, the first two sentences are nearly identical ('Replace all splits...' and 'Replace all splits... completely new set'), which is redundant and slightly reduces conciseness.

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?

Given the tool's complexity and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete: it covers required fields, preservation behavior, unchanged-leg semantics, reconciliation handling, lot considerations, and the force parameter. An agent has enough information to invoke the tool correctly in both simple and reconciled-transaction scenarios.

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 low (33%), so the description carries the parameter documentation burden. It thoroughly explains guid prefixes, account reference formats, decimal-string requirements, when quantity is required, and force semantics. It omits the nested 'action' field, but the schema already documents that field in detail, so the compensation is adequate.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Replace all splits in a transaction with a new set.' It further clarifies scope by noting what is preserved (currency, description, date, notes) and the balancing requirement, making the tool's purpose unmistakable and distinct from transaction creation or update tools.

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 gives clear context for when to use this tool, such as recategorizing the expense leg of a reconciled bank transaction, and explains when force is needed. It does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools or state when not to use them, but the usage context is strong enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/ninetails-io/gnucash-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server