ib-async-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

get_open_orders

Retrieve all currently active orders from Interactive Brokers accounts to monitor trade execution status and manage positions.

Instructions

Get all open orders.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Implementation Reference

src/ib_async_mcp/server.py:666-668 (handler)
The handler logic for 'get_open_orders' that calls ib.openOrders() and serializes the result.
```
if name == "get_open_orders":
    orders = ib.openOrders()
    return [serialize_object(o) for o in orders]
```

src/ib_async_mcp/server.py:288-292 (registration)

The Tool definition and registration for 'get_open_orders'.

Tool(
    name="get_open_orders",
    description="Get all open orders.",
    inputSchema={"type": "object", "properties": {}},
),

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Mar 25, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It only states 'Get all open orders' without disclosing whether it returns orders from all accounts, whether it includes pending orders, or any side effects. The agent has no information about expected behavior beyond the name.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single sentence, concise and front-loaded. However, it could be slightly expanded with context without losing conciseness.

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 no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is minimally adequate. It does not explain what 'open orders' means, how they are filtered (e.g., by account), or the response format. For a simple read operation, this may suffice, but lacks depth.

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 zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter details, and it correctly implies that no input is required.

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 clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('all open orders'), specifying the state ('open') which distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'get_open_trades' and 'get_fills'. It is unambiguous.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'get_fills' or 'get_executions'. There is no mention of prerequisites or contexts where this tool is appropriate or not.

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