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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Add' implies a mutation/write operation, but the description doesn't specify required permissions, whether the operation is idempotent, potential side effects (e.g., impact on existing tenants), rate limits, or what happens on failure. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 waste. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, directly stating the tool's purpose without unnecessary elaboration. Every word earns its place, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 of creating a tenant (a mutation operation with potential side effects), the description is incomplete. There are no annotations, no output schema, and the input schema lacks descriptions. The description doesn't explain what a successful creation returns, error conditions, or behavioral nuances. For this context, it should provide more guidance on usage and parameters.

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 required parameter 'body' as a nested object with unspecified properties. The description adds no information about what the 'body' should contain (e.g., tenant name, configuration details, authentication parameters). With low schema coverage, the description fails to compensate, leaving parameters entirely undocumented.

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 ('Add') and resource ('new Microsoft Entra ID tenant'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'DeleteEntraIDTenants' and 'UpdateEntraIDTenants' by focusing on creation. However, it doesn't specify what constitutes a 'tenant' in this context or differentiate from similar creation tools like 'CreateUser' or 'CreateCloudCreds' beyond the resource type.

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., permissions, existing configurations), when not to use it, or how it relates to sibling tools like 'UpdateEntraIDTenants' or 'DeleteEntraIDTenants'. The agent must infer usage solely from the tool name and description.

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