ib-async-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

get_current_time

Retrieve the current server time from Interactive Brokers TWS to synchronize trading operations and ensure accurate timestamping for market data and order execution.

Instructions

Get current TWS server time.

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_current_time"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Implementation Reference

src/ib_async_mcp/server.py:809-811 (handler)
The logic handler for "get_current_time" tool, which invokes reqCurrentTimeAsync on the ib object and returns the formatted server time.
```
if name == "get_current_time":
    time = await ib.reqCurrentTimeAsync()
    return {"server_time": time.isoformat()}
```

src/ib_async_mcp/server.py:424-428 (registration)

Tool registration definition for "get_current_time" in the server's tool list.

Tool(
    name="get_current_time",
    description="Get current TWS server time.",
    inputSchema={"type": "object", "properties": {}},
),

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Mar 25, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description must convey all behavioral traits. It indicates a read-only operation ('Get') but does not mention potential network calls, caching, or return value characteristics.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It earns its place efficiently.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity and lack of output schema, the description is adequate but does not specify the format of the returned time (e.g., ISO 8601, Unix timestamp), which could be helpful.

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?

There are no parameters, and schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, but the baseline for zero parameters is 4.

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 current TWS server time' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly stating the tool's function. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools as no other tool retrieves the server time.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or alternative guidance is provided. However, the tool is simple and self-contained, so the intended usage is implied by the description alone.

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