Skip to main content
Glama
nadavgb-atom

ib-async-mcp

by nadavgb-atom

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.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Implementation Reference

  • 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()}
  • 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": {}},
    ),
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full disclosure burden but fails to specify return format (ISO string, epoch timestamp, or object), timezone (UTC, local, or server time), or whether the call is cached or synchronous. The only behavioral hint is 'server time' implying a network dependency.

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?

Four-word sentence is appropriately sized for a zero-parameter utility function. Every word earns its place: 'Get' (action), 'current' (temporal scope), 'TWS server time' (resource). No redundancy or structural issues.

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?

Despite low complexity, the absence of an output schema means the description should describe return value characteristics (format, timezone). It does not, leaving agents guessing whether they receive a string, number, or structured object. The 'TWS' term is also undefined.

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?

Zero parameters with 100% schema coverage (empty object) provides complete schema documentation by default, warranting the baseline score of 4 per rubric. The description appropriately makes no mention of parameters since none exist.

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?

Specific verb 'Get' and resource 'current TWS server time' clearly identify the tool's function. However, it does not differentiate from sibling 'get_head_timestamp' (which returns the first available historical data timestamp) nor explain the 'TWS' acronym, slightly limiting clarity for agents unfamiliar with Trader Workstation terminology.

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 provided on when to use this versus alternatives like 'get_head_timestamp', nor prerequisites such as requiring an active connection to the TWS server. The description assumes the agent inherently understands when current server time is needed versus historical timestamps.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/nadavgb-atom/ib-async-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server