Veeam VBR v13 MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It fails to do so—it does not indicate whether this is a destructive operation (likely yes, as 'switchover' implies a permanent change), what permissions are required, any rate limits, or what happens upon execution (e.g., commits a recovery mount to production). The description is too minimal to inform the agent about critical behaviors.

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 extremely concise—a single three-word sentence—and front-loaded with the core action. There is no wasted verbiage, making it efficient in length, though this brevity comes at the cost of completeness. Every word earns its place by stating the basic intent, but it lacks necessary detail.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (involving Azure VM recovery with two parameters, nested objects, and no output schema), the description is severely incomplete. It does not compensate for the lack of annotations, schema descriptions, or output schema—failing to explain the tool's purpose, usage, behavior, or parameters. This leaves the agent unable to operate the tool effectively in context.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, with two parameters ('mountId' and 'body') that are entirely undocumented in the schema. The description adds no information about these parameters—it does not explain what 'mountId' refers to (e.g., an existing recovery mount session) or what the 'body' object should contain. This leaves the agent with no semantic understanding of how to invoke the tool correctly.

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 switchover to Azure' is vague and tautological—it essentially restates the tool name without specifying what 'switchover' entails or what resource it operates on. While it implies a verb ('Start') and a target ('Azure'), it lacks specificity about the action (e.g., what is being switched over, such as a VM recovery mount) and does not distinguish it from sibling tools like 'AzureInstantVMRecoveryMigrate' or 'AzureInstantVMRecoveryMount'.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a mounted recovery session), exclusions, or related tools like 'AzureInstantVMRecoveryMount' (which likely sets up the mount) or 'AzureInstantVMRecoveryMigrate' (which might be a different recovery action). Without any context, an agent cannot determine appropriate usage.

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