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 full burden but only states the action without behavioral details. It doesn't disclose whether this is a read-only or destructive operation, permission requirements, rate limits, or what happens to source backups post-copy. This is inadequate for a tool that likely involves data movement.

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 appropriately front-loaded with the core action, though this brevity contributes to other scoring deficiencies.

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 implied by 'copy backups' (likely a data migration operation), no annotations, no output schema, and a completely undocumented parameter schema, the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't address what constitutes success/failure, return values, or operational constraints.

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 0% description coverage with one parameter ('body') as a nested object with no defined properties. The description adds no parameter information beyond the tool name, failing to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation. This leaves the agent guessing about required input structure.

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 'Copy backups to another repository' clearly states the action (copy) and resource (backups), but lacks specificity about what constitutes 'backups' or 'repository' in this context. It doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'CreateRepository' or 'DeleteBackup', leaving the scope vague.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'CloneJob' or 'CreateRepository'. The description offers no context about prerequisites, timing, or exclusions, leaving the agent with no usage direction.

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