MCP Firebird

List Available Events

list-available-events

Read-onlyIdempotent

Discover native Firebird POST_EVENT events defined in database triggers and procedures, so you can identify available event hooks for monitoring or workflow integration.

Instructions

Lists native events (POST_EVENT) available in database triggers and procedures

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": {
+      "description": "The legacy JSON payload; present for completed operations and partial batches",
+      "items": {
+        "additionalProperties": false,
+        "properties": {
+          "name": {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "type": {
+            "type": "string"
+          }
+        },
+        "required": [
+          "name",
+          "type"
+        ],
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "success": {
+      "description": "False for tool failures, including partially failed batches",
+      "type": "boolean"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "success"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

Addedv2.8.1Jun 29, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and closed-world scope, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description's only added behavioral context is that the events are native POST_EVENT types relevant to triggers and procedures; it says nothing about whether any events are user-defined versus built-in.

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 zero filler, which is well matched to a zero-parameter list tool. It is arguably under-specified rather than over-specified, but there is no wasted verbiage.

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 need not be described. Still, for a discovery tool that feeds into subscribe_to_event, the description omits why an agent would list these events or how the result is used, leaving a gap in the overall workflow picture.

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 the baseline is 4. Nothing in the description is needed to compensate, and nothing in it conflicts with the empty schema.

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?

States a specific verb ('Lists') and a specific resource ('native events (POST_EVENT)') plus its scope ('available in database triggers and procedures'). It is distinguishable from sibling list-* tools, though it never names an alternative such as subscribe_to_event or list-triggers.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no direction toward the closely related siblings subscribe_to_event / unsubscribe_from_event. The agent must infer the workflow entirely on its own.

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