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. 'Add a new server' implies a write/mutation operation, but it doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether this operation is idempotent, what happens on failure, or if there are rate limits. The description is minimal and lacks essential context 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 with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, 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 (a mutation tool with no annotations, 1 undocumented parameter, and no output schema), the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what a 'managed server' is, what data the 'body' should include, or what the tool returns. For a tool that likely requires specific configuration, 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 1 parameter ('body') with 0% description coverage and no details in the schema. The description provides no information about what the 'body' parameter should contain (e.g., server configuration details like name, type, credentials). This leaves the parameter completely 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 server to the backup infrastructure'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'CreateUnstructuredDataServer' or 'CreateRepository', which also create resources in the same infrastructure.

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. With many sibling tools that create various resources (e.g., 'CreateUnstructuredDataServer', 'CreateRepository'), there's no indication of what makes this tool specific for managed servers or any prerequisites for its use.

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