Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Interactive Brokers MCP Server

Interactive Brokers MCP Server

by code-rabi
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

delete_alert

Delete a specific alert from an Interactive Brokers account by providing the account ID and alert ID.

Instructions

Delete an alert. Usage: { "accountId": "<id>", "alertId": "<alertId>" }.

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": {
      "accountId": "<accountId>",
      "alertId": "<alertId>"
    },
    "name": "delete_alert"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
alertIdYes
accountIdYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

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

TDQS

C2.8/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It only states 'Delete an alert', implying a destructive action, but omits details on side effects, permissions, or reversibility.

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?

The description is extremely concise with two short sentences. It is front-loaded with the action and followed by a usage example. No unnecessary words.

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 simplicity (2 required params, no output schema), the description is insufficient. It lacks parameter semantics, usage guidelines, and behavioral details, leaving the agent with minimal decision support.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, and the description only repeats the structure without explaining the purpose or acceptable values of accountId and alertId.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states 'Delete an alert' with a verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_alert and activate_alert. However, it lacks context on scope or irreversibility.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., deactivating an alert). The description only provides a usage example but no situational advice.

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