ibkr_statusCheck Interactive Brokers sign-in status, account IDs, granted scopes, and token expiry, and confirm order submission is not authorized.
Show whether the user is signed in to Interactive Brokers, the account ids, granted scopes, token expiry, and confirm that order submission was not granted.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare the tool read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral value by specifying the returned status data and explicitly confirming that order submission was not granted, which is meaningful context beyond the annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The definition is a single, front-loaded sentence that enumerates the returned fields without filler. Every clause contributes to describing the tool's output and scope.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining return values and does so thoroughly: sign-in state, account ids, scopes, token expiry, and order-submission permission. For a zero-parameter status tool with full annotation coverage, nothing essential is missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero input parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to explain; the baseline score of 4 applies. The schema and description are consistent, and no missing parameter information exists.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb ('Show') and resource ('signed in to Interactive Brokers') and enumerates the exact status fields returned: account ids, scopes, token expiry, and order-submission permission. This inherently distinguishes it from the sibling sign-in and sign-out tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is implied by the status-check nature of the tool, but the description does not explicitly say when to call it versus ibkr_sign_in or ibkr_sign_out, nor does it state prerequisites or exclusions. An agent can infer the use case, but the definition leaves the routing to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.