MCP Firebird

Verify Wire Encryption

verify-wire-encryption

Read-onlyIdempotent

Reports wire-encryption configuration for Firebird databases to aid security audits, without checking encryption on active connections.

Instructions

Reports wire-encryption configuration; does not verify negotiated encryption on an active database connection.

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": {
+        "driverType": {
+          "enum": [
+            "native",
+            "pure-js"
+          ],
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "hasNativeDriver": {
+          "type": "boolean"
+        },
+        "recommendation": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "status": {
+          "const": "configuration-only",
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "verified": {
+          "const": false,
+          "type": "boolean"
+        },
+        "wireEncryptionEnabled": {
+          "type": "boolean"
+        }
+      },
+      "required": [
+        "verified",
+        "status",
+        "hasNativeDriver",
+        "wireEncryptionEnabled",
+        "driverType",
+        "recommendation"
+      ],
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "success": {
+      "description": "False for tool failures, including partially failed batches",
+      "type": "boolean"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "success"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

Addedv1.0.0Jan 2, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds the genuinely useful behavioral boundary that this reports static configuration rather than runtime-negotiated encryption, preventing a common misinterpretation. It says nothing about permissions or cost, but nothing is contradicted.

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?

A single sentence, front-loaded with what it reports and immediately followed by the scope caveat. No filler and nothing redundant with structured fields.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no parameters and an output schema present, the description only needs to convey purpose and scope, which it does. The only minor gap is that it never hints at what the reported configuration contains, though the output schema likely covers that.

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 no parameters, so the schema carries no semantics for the description to add. Baseline of 4 applies for a zero-parameter tool.

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 and resource: reporting wire-encryption configuration. It also pre-empts a likely confusion by stating it does not verify negotiated encryption on a live connection, which is stronger than a bare purpose statement. It does not, however, differentiate itself from other server/config-introspection siblings such as get-server-info.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The 'does not verify negotiated encryption on an active database connection' clause implicitly tells the agent when this tool is the wrong choice, which is useful negative guidance. But it names no alternative tool and gives no positive condition for when to call this one.

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