ib-async-mcp

by nadavgb-atom

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Local

disconnect

Terminate the connection to Interactive Brokers TWS or IB Gateway, ending all active data streams and trading sessions.

Instructions

Disconnect from TWS/Gateway.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Implementation Reference

src/ib_async_mcp/server.py:462-466 (handler)
The handler logic for the 'disconnect' tool, which sets the 'ib' client to None and calls its disconnect method.
```
if name == "disconnect":
    if ib is not None:
        ib.disconnect()
        ib = None
    return {"status": "disconnected"}
```

src/ib_async_mcp/server.py:80-84 (registration)

Registration of the 'disconnect' tool with name, description, and empty input schema.

Tool(
    name="disconnect",
    description="Disconnect from TWS/Gateway.",
    inputSchema={"type": "object", "properties": {}},
),

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Mar 25, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. 'Disconnect from TWS/Gateway' adequately conveys the action but lacks detail on side effects (e.g., pending orders, state after). Acceptable for a simple operation.

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, direct sentence with no extraneous information. 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 tool with zero parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does. No additional context is necessary.

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?

No parameters exist. Schema coverage is 100%. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and description adds nothing extra—appropriate since none needed.

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 'Disconnect from TWS/Gateway' uses a specific verb ('disconnect') and identifies the target resource ('TWS/Gateway'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'connect' and 'is_connected'.

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 purpose is clear, but no explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when connected, before exit). It meets the minimum viable level.

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