Veeam VBR v13 MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the action without behavioral details. It doesn't disclose permissions required, whether it's destructive, rate limits, or what 'start' implies (e.g., asynchronous process). This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 description is a single, direct sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and efficiently conveys the essential purpose, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

For a complex tool with 2 parameters (one nested), 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks parameter details, behavioral context, and output expectations, making it incomplete for effective agent use.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description provides no information about the two required parameters (mountId and body). It doesn't explain what mountId refers to or what the body object should contain, leaving parameters completely undocumented.

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 'Start migrating a machine to Azure permanently' clearly states the action (start migrating) and resource (a machine to Azure), with 'permanently' hinting at a final state. It distinguishes from siblings like AzureInstantVMRecoveryMount (temporary) and AzureInstantVMRecoverySwitchover (transitional), though not explicitly named.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like AzureInstantVMRecoverySwitchover or InstantHvVMRecoveryMigrate. The description implies a permanent migration, but lacks context on prerequisites, timing, or exclusions, leaving usage ambiguous.

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