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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a mutation operation ('Change') but doesn't specify required permissions, whether changes are reversible, potential side effects, or error conditions. This is inadequate for a tool that modifies sensitive credential data, leaving significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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, making it appropriately concise. However, it's overly terse given the tool's complexity—it could benefit from slightly more detail without losing efficiency, as it currently under-specifies critical aspects.

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 mutation nature, lack of annotations, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and two parameters (including a nested object), the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral risks, parameter meanings, or expected outcomes, making it insufficient for safe and effective use by an AI agent in this 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description provides no information about the two parameters ('id' and 'body'). It doesn't explain what 'id' refers to (e.g., credential record identifier) or what 'body' should contain (e.g., new private key details). The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation, leaving parameters semantically opaque.

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 clearly states the action ('Change') and target resource ('Linux private key for a credentials record'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'ChangePasswordForCreds' or 'ChangeRootPasswordForCreds' that modify other credential attributes, so it doesn't fully distinguish its specific scope.

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, prerequisites, or exclusions. It lacks context about the credentials system or relationships with other tools, leaving the agent to infer usage scenarios without explicit direction.

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