Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Interactive Brokers MCP Server

Interactive Brokers MCP Server

by code-rabi
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

confirm_order

Confirm pending orders by providing the reply identifier and message IDs to finalize trade placement.

Instructions

Manually confirm an order that requires confirmation. Usage: { "replyId": "742a95a7-55f6-4d67-861b-2fd3e2b61e3c", "messageIds": ["o10151", "o10153"] }.

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": {
      "replyId": "<replyId>",
      "messageIds": "<messageIds>"
    },
    "name": "confirm_order"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
replyIdYes
messageIdsYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv1.21.3
  2. Removedv1.15.1
  3. Addedv1.0.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided. Description only says 'manually confirm' without explaining side effects, required permissions, or what happens upon success/failure. The example only shows parameter structure, not behavior.

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?

Very concise, two sentences. No unnecessary words. Could be slightly improved by separating example from usage context, but still efficient.

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?

Lacks critical context: no output schema, no prerequisites, no error handling details. Given the tool modifies state (confirms order), description should be more comprehensive.

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 coverage is 0%. Description provides an example mapping replyId and messageIds but does not explain their meanings or constraints beyond the schema definition.

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?

Clearly states verb 'confirm' and resource 'order', specifying that it is for orders requiring manual confirmation. Distinguishes from sibling tools like place_order, get_order_status, etc.

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?

Implies usage when an order needs confirmation, but does not explicitly state when to use or avoid this tool. No mention of alternatives or prerequisites.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools