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 states the tool clones a job, implying a mutation operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as permissions required, whether the clone inherits settings, if the original job is affected, error conditions, or response format. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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 that front-loads the core action ('Clone an existing job') and adds necessary detail ('to create a duplicate with a new name'). There is no wasted language, making it appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 no annotations, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and a mutation tool with 2 parameters (including a nested object), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on permissions, behavioral effects, parameter usage, and return values, which are critical for safe and correct invocation.

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 schema provides no parameter details. The description mentions 'an existing job' and 'new name,' hinting at parameters for the job ID and name, but doesn't explain the 'body' parameter or provide any syntax, format, or constraints. It adds minimal value beyond the schema.

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 verb ('Clone') and resource ('an existing job'), specifying it creates a duplicate with a new name. It distinguishes from siblings like 'CreateJob' by indicating it duplicates an existing job rather than creating one from scratch. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other job-related tools like 'UpdateJob' or 'RetryJob' in terms of purpose.

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., needing an existing job ID), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'CreateJob' (for new jobs) or 'UpdateJob' (for modifying existing jobs). Usage is implied but not explicitly stated.

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