create_withdrawal endpoint ignores destination_id parameter, always defaults to Cash account

[RadCod3]

The create_withdrawal function in the LamPyrid MCP server has a bug where the destination_id parameter is ignored. When calling create_withdrawal with a destination_id specified, the transaction is always created with the Cash account (ID: 6) as the destination, regardless of what destination_id is provided.

Workaround: Using destination_name instead of destination_id works correctly and routes to the proper expense account.

Steps to Reproduce:

1. Call create_withdrawal with destination_id: "173" (or any expense account ID)
2. Observe that the created transaction has destination_id: "6" (Cash account) instead

Expected Behavior: Transactions should be created with the specified destination_id

Actual Behavior: Transactions default to Cash account (ID: 6) when destination_id is used

[RadCod3]

Below is the JSON schema visible to the mcp client is as below

Show JSON schema

{
  "$defs": {
    "CreateWithdrawalRequest": {
      "description": "Request model for creating a withdrawal transaction.",
      "properties": {
        "amount": {
          "description": "Amount to withdraw as positive number (e.g., 25.50 for $25.50 expense)",
          "type": "number"
        },
        "budget_id": {
          "anyOf": [
            {
              "type": "string"
            },
            {
              "type": "null"
            }
          ],
          "default": null,
          "description": "Budget to track this expense against (from list_budgets)"
        },
        "budget_name": {
          "anyOf": [
            {
              "type": "string"
            },
            {
              "type": "null"
            }
          ],
          "default": null,
          "description": "Name of budget if ID is unknown. Will use ID if both provided."
        },
        "date": {
          "description": "When the expense occurred (defaults to current time if not specified)",
          "format": "date-time",
          "type": "string"
        },
        "description": {
          "description": "What this expense was for (e.g., \"Grocery shopping at Whole Foods\")",
          "type": "string"
        },
        "destination_name": {
          "anyOf": [
            {
              "type": "string"
            },
            {
              "type": "null"
            }
          ],
          "default": null,
          "description": "Where the money went (\"Groceries\", \"Gas Station\", \"ATM\"). Creates expense account if new. Leave blank for cash withdrawals."
        },
        "source_id": {
          "description": "ID of your account the money comes from (checking, savings, cash, etc.). Must be an asset account you own.",
          "type": "string"
        }
      },
      "required": [
        "amount",
        "description",
        "source_id"
      ],
      "type": "object"
    }
  },
  "properties": {
    "req": {
      "$ref": "#/$defs/CreateWithdrawalRequest"
    }
  },
  "required": [
    "req"
  ],
  "type": "object"
}

As you can see destination_id is not an available field in CreateWithdrawalRequest. The LLM model previously used bulk transaction creation tool which does have destination_id as a field so tried to use the same field for this tool as well. The destination_name field is optional because leaving it blank makes the destination Cash Account.

We can do two possible improvements.

1. Make the pydantic models throw an error if extra fields are passed in.
2. Add destination_id and source_id to CreateWithdrawalRequest and CreateDepositRequest