MCP Firebird

Get Database Info

get-database-info

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieves general information about the connected Firebird database to support monitoring, analysis, and troubleshooting.

Instructions

Retrieves general information about the connected Firebird database.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`error`	No	Failure information; present when success is false
`result`	No	The legacy JSON payload; present for completed operations and partial batches
`success`	Yes	False for tool failures, including partially failed batches

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedv2.12.0Oct 7, 2026

changedInput schema / $schema

Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$defs": {
+    "__schema0": {
+      "anyOf": [
+        {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        {
+          "type": "number"
+        },
+        {
+          "type": "boolean"
+        },
+        {
+          "type": "null"
+        },
+        {
+          "items": {
+            "$ref": "#/$defs/__schema0"
+          },
+          "type": "array"
+        },
+        {
+          "additionalProperties": {
+            "$ref": "#/$defs/__schema0"
+          },
+          "propertyNames": {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "type": "object"
+        }
+      ]
+    }
+  },
+  "$schema": "https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema",
+  "additionalProperties": false,
+  "properties": {
+    "error": {
+      "additionalProperties": false,
+      "description": "Failure information; present when success is false",
+      "properties": {
+        "details": {
+          "additionalProperties": {
+            "$ref": "#/$defs/__schema0"
+          },
+          "propertyNames": {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "type": "object"
+        },
+        "message": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "type": {
+          "type": "string"
+        }
+      },
+      "required": [
+        "message",
+        "type"
+      ],
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "result": {
+      "additionalProperties": false,
+      "description": "The legacy JSON payload; present for completed operations and partial batches",
+      "properties": {
+        "tables": {
+          "items": {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "type": "array"
+        },
+        "totalTables": {
+          "type": "number"
+        }
+      },
+      "required": [
+        "totalTables",
+        "tables"
+      ],
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "success": {
+      "description": "False for tool failures, including partially failed batches",
+      "type": "boolean"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "success"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

Addedv1.0.0Jan 2, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds nothing beyond that baseline — no note on connection/auth requirements, latency, or the fact that results reflect the currently connected database only.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficiently sized, though its brevity is partly the same under-specification noted elsewhere rather than deliberate economy.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values do not need to be described, and there are no parameters to cover. What remains missing is any hint of what "general information" encompasses or how it differs from get-server-info, which leaves a real gap for tool selection.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so per the rubric this is the baseline of 4. There is no parameter surface for the description to explain, and nothing is misrepresented.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

It names a specific verb and resource (retrieves info about the connected Firebird database), so the target is unambiguous. But "general information" is vague about what is actually returned, and it gives no differentiation from the closely related sibling get-server-info, leaving the agent to guess which one it wants.

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?

The description offers no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. With siblings like get-server-info, system-health-check, and list-tables present, an agent gets no help deciding when this tool is the right call versus those.

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