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 for behavioral disclosure. It only states what the tool does ('change switchover time'), with no information about permissions required, whether it's a read-only or destructive operation, rate limits, side effects, or what happens after invocation. For a tool that likely modifies system settings, this lack of transparency is inadequate.

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 no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and target, making it easy to parse quickly. There's no unnecessary elaboration or redundancy.

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 (likely a mutation tool affecting system behavior), lack of annotations, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and presence of sibling tools with similar purposes, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to provide necessary context about usage, parameters, behavior, or differentiation, leaving the agent with insufficient information to use the tool 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?

The input schema has 1 parameter ('body') with 0% description coverage and no schema details. The description mentions 'switchover time' but doesn't explain what the 'body' parameter should contain (e.g., time values, format, units) or how to structure it. It adds minimal semantic context beyond the parameter name, insufficient to compensate for the poor schema coverage.

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 switchover time for replica failback' clearly states the action (change) and target (switchover time for replica failback), which is better than a tautology. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'UpdateAzureInstantVMRecoverySwitchoverSettings' or 'UpdateUnstructuredDataShareIRSwitchoverSettings', which also appear to modify switchover settings for different recovery scenarios. The purpose is understandable but lacks differentiation from similar tools.

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, context (e.g., during failback operations), or exclusions. Given the sibling tools include various switchover-related tools (e.g., for Azure, VMware, unstructured data), there's no indication of which scenarios this tool applies to, making it misleadingly generic.

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