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 for behavioral disclosure. 'Add' implies a write/mutation operation, but it doesn't specify required permissions, whether the operation is idempotent, what happens on conflict, or what the response contains. For a creation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves critical behavioral aspects undocumented.

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 extremely concise—a single sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource. While it lacks detail, every word earns its place by directly stating the tool's purpose without 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 tool's complexity (creation operation with a nested object parameter), lack of annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what a KMS server is, what data must be provided, what the operation returns, or any behavioral constraints. For a mutation tool with undocumented parameters, this leaves too many gaps.

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') that's a generic object with no defined properties. The description adds no parameter information whatsoever—it doesn't explain what fields 'body' should contain, what configuration a KMS server requires, or provide any examples. With low schema coverage, the description fails to compensate.

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 KMS server'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'DeleteKMSServer' and 'UpdateKMSServer' by specifying creation. However, it doesn't specify what a KMS server is in this context or differentiate from other creation tools like 'CreateManagedServer' or 'CreateRepository'.

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. There's no mention of prerequisites, when not to use it, or how it relates to sibling tools like 'GetKMSServers' (for listing) or 'UpdateKMSServer' (for modification). The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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