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 full burden. It only states the action ('Change') without disclosing behavioral traits like required permissions, whether this is a destructive operation (likely yes, as it modifies security credentials), potential side effects, or error conditions. This leaves critical safety and operational details unspecified.

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, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple action, though its brevity contributes to the lack of detail 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 security-related mutation tool), lack of annotations, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and two parameters (one nested), the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't address permissions, side effects, parameter meanings, or expected outcomes, making it inadequate for safe and correct usage.

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 parameters. The input schema has two required parameters ('id' and 'body'), but the description doesn't explain what 'id' refers to (e.g., password identifier) or what 'body' should contain (e.g., new password value, confirmation). This fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 'Change an encryption password value' states a clear verb ('Change') and resource ('encryption password value'), but it's vague about what specifically is being changed. It doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'UpdateEncryptionPassword' (which appears in the list), leaving ambiguity about whether this is a different operation or a duplicate.

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 doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., existing encryption password), exclusions, or compare it to sibling tools like 'CreateEncryptionPassword' or 'UpdateEncryptionPassword', making it difficult for an agent to choose correctly.

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