mm-ibkr-mcp

by MrRolie

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Hybrid

List Open Orders

list_open_orders

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve all currently open orders from the active Interactive Brokers connection to monitor pending trades.

Instructions

List currently open orders on the active IBKR connection.

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": "list_open_orders"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`count`	Yes	Number of open orders.
`orders`	No	Open orders.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 8, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds the 'active IBKR connection' context and the 'currently open' temporal scope, which are useful beyond annotations. No contradictions and no missing behavioral disclosures.

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?

A single sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource, with no filler. Every word earns its place.

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?

For a parameterless read-only list with an output schema available, the description fully specifies the scope and context. An agent can invoke it correctly without additional details.

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

Parameters4/5

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

There are zero parameters, so the description has nothing to add about parameters. With an empty schema and 100% coverage, the baseline of 4 is appropriate; the description does not need to compensate for any undocumented params.

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 states a specific action (list), a clear resource (currently open orders), and a context (active IBKR connection). It is distinct from siblings like get_order_status (single order) and list_trade_intents (trade intents), so an agent can easily tell what this tool does.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies when to use it (to see current open orders) but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or mention when not to use it. For a zero-parameter read-only list, the context is clear enough, but explicit guidance on selecting it over get_order_status would improve the score.

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