ib-async-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

is_connected

Check connection status to Interactive Brokers TWS or Gateway to verify API accessibility for trading and data operations.

Instructions

Check if connected to TWS/Gateway.

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": "is_connected"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Implementation Reference

src/ib_async_mcp/server.py:468-469 (handler)
The logic implementation for the "is_connected" tool.
```
if name == "is_connected":
    return {"connected": ib is not None and ib.isConnected()}
```

src/ib_async_mcp/server.py:85-89 (registration)

Tool registration for "is_connected" in the list_tools function.

Tool(
    name="is_connected",
    description="Check if connected to TWS/Gateway.",
    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?

No annotations provided. The description does not disclose what the tool returns (e.g., boolean), potential errors, or side effects. For a simple check, the behavior is somewhat obvious but incomplete.

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?

Single sentence, no redundancy, perfectly concise. Every word is necessary and informative.

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?

The description lacks details about the return value or behavior. With no output schema, the description should clarify what the tool returns (e.g., true/false). It is too sparse for complete understanding.

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 exist, and schema coverage is 100% (empty schema). The description adds no param info, which is acceptable given the 0-param baseline of 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 explicitly states the action ('Check if connected') and the resource ('TWS/Gateway'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like connect and disconnect.

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 vs alternatives, such as before attempting operations or after connection changes. No exclusions or context provided.

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