ib-async-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

get_executions

Retrieve execution reports from Interactive Brokers to monitor trade confirmations and transaction details for account management.

Instructions

Get execution reports.

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_executions"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Implementation Reference

src/ib_async_mcp/server.py:683-685 (handler)
The handler logic for "get_executions" which fetches executions from the IB connection and serializes them.
```
if name == "get_executions":
    executions = ib.executions()
    return [serialize_object(e) for e in executions]
```

src/ib_async_mcp/server.py:298-302 (registration)

Registration of the "get_executions" tool within the MCP server definition.

Tool(
    name="get_executions",
    description="Get execution reports.",
    inputSchema={"type": "object", "properties": {}},
),

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Mar 25, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided. Description does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether it is read-only, what scope of reports are returned (e.g., today's, filtered), or any authentication requirements.

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?

Extremely concise but omits essential details. A single sentence is efficient but insufficiently informative for an agent.

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?

Lacking output schema and annotations, the description should explain what an execution report contains. Currently too vague for an agent to understand the tool's full capability.

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 to describe (schema coverage 100% with zero params). Baseline 4 applies; description adds no parameter info but schema already covers everything.

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 'Get execution reports' is clear with a specific verb and resource. However, it does not distinguish from sibling tool 'get_fills' which likely returns similar data, so slight ambiguity remains.

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 on when to use this tool over alternatives like 'get_fills' or 'get_open_trades'. The description lacks context for proper selection.

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