Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Interactive Brokers MCP Server

Interactive Brokers MCP Server

by code-rabi
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

get_positions

Get current positions from your Interactive Brokers trading account. Provide an account ID to filter positions.

Instructions

Get current positions. Usage: {} or { "accountId": "<id>" }.

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>"
    },
    "name": "get_positions"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
accountIdYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv1.21.3
  2. Removedv1.15.1
  3. Changed2 schema fields changedv1.0.0
    • removedInput schema / properties / accountId / description
      Removed value: -"Account ID (optional, uses default if not provided)"
    • addedInput schema / required
      Added value: +[
+  "accountId"
+]
  4. First observed

TDQS

C2.5/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, and the description fails to disclose side effects, permissions, required authentication, or what 'positions' entails. The usage examples are misleading, indicating lack of behavioral clarity.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is very short, which is concise, but the usage examples are potentially incorrect and could be better formatted. It earns its place but is flawed.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness1/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given no output schema, no annotations, and a single undocumented required parameter, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain return values, error conditions, or what 'positions' means, making it inadequate for an agent to use effectively.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate but only shows usage patterns without explaining the meaning of accountId (e.g., whose positions). The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema.

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 'Get current positions,' providing a specific verb and resource. However, it does not distinguish this tool from siblings like 'get_account_info' or 'get_alerts', which may overlap in functionality.

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?

The usage examples show both an empty object and an object with accountId, but the schema requires accountId, making the empty object invalid. No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives.

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