ib-async-mcp

by nadavgb-atom

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Local

get_accounts

Retrieve a list of managed account names from Interactive Brokers through the ib-async MCP server interface.

Instructions

Get list of managed account names.

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": "get_accounts"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Implementation Reference

src/ib_async_mcp/server.py:91-95 (registration)

Tool 'get_accounts' registration definition.

Tool(
    name="get_accounts",
    description="Get list of managed account names.",
    inputSchema={"type": "object", "properties": {}},
),

src/ib_async_mcp/server.py:476-477 (handler)
Handler for 'get_accounts' tool.
```
if name == "get_accounts":
    return {"accounts": ib.managedAccounts()}
```

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Mar 25, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description is minimal and does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, rate limits, or side effects beyond what the name implies.

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 concise sentence with no wasted words, appropriately front-loaded.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a simple parameterless tool, the description is adequate but lacks return format or any additional context; completeness could be improved.

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?

The tool has no parameters, so the schema coverage is 100%. The description lacks parameter detail but is not needed; baseline 4 for zero parameters.

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 'Get list of managed account names' clearly states the verb and resource, and distinguishes from siblings like get_account_summary and get_account_values by specifying it returns names.

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 usage guidelines are provided; the description does not specify when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it offer exclusions or prerequisites.

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