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 carries the full burden. It states the tool stops publishing/unmounts, implying a destructive mutation that likely requires specific permissions and affects system state, but it doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether the operation is reversible, what happens to the machine (e.g., shutdown, deletion), rate limits, or error conditions. The description is minimal and lacks necessary context for safe use.

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 with a single sentence: 'Stop publishing a machine to Azure (unmount).' It is front-loaded and wastes no words, making it easy to parse quickly. However, this conciseness comes at the cost of completeness, as noted in other dimensions.

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 complexity (a mutation tool for Azure VM recovery with 2 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on parameters, behavioral implications, error handling, and expected outcomes. For a tool that likely involves critical recovery operations, this minimal description is inadequate and leaves significant gaps for an AI agent to infer correctly.

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%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It mentions no parameters at all, failing to explain the meaning of 'mountId' (likely an identifier for the mount to stop) or the purpose of the 'body' object (possibly additional configuration or options). With 2 parameters and no schema descriptions, the description adds no value beyond what the bare schema provides.

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 'Stop publishing a machine to Azure (unmount)' clearly states the action (stop publishing/unmount) and resource (a machine in Azure), but it's vague about the specific context (e.g., what 'publishing' entails, whether it's for recovery or testing). It distinguishes from siblings like 'AzureInstantVMRecoveryMount' by indicating an opposite operation, but lacks precision on the recovery aspect implied by the tool name.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies it's for stopping a mount operation, but it doesn't specify prerequisites (e.g., must have an active mount), exclusions, or direct alternatives among siblings like 'AzureInstantVMRecoverySwitchover' or 'AzureInstantVMRecoveryMigrate'. Usage is inferred from the action but not clearly defined.

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