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. It states 'Add a VM to the global exclusion list,' implying a mutation operation, but does not disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether this is destructive, rate limits, or what happens upon success/failure. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 is front-loaded and directly states the tool's purpose, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 (mutation tool with nested parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage), the description is incomplete. It lacks essential details like parameter explanations, behavioral context, and output expectations, making it insufficient for effective tool use.

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 details in the schema. The description does not mention parameters at all, failing to add any semantic meaning beyond the schema. For a tool with nested objects and low schema coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 ('a VM to the global exclusion list'), making the purpose specific and understandable. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'DeleteGlobalVMExclusion', but the verb 'Add' versus 'Delete' provides implicit distinction, so it's not fully explicit about sibling relationships.

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. The description lacks context such as prerequisites, when this operation is appropriate, or what the global exclusion list entails, leaving the agent without usage instructions.

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