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' implies a write/mutation operation, but it doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether this is idempotent, what happens on duplicate creation, rate limits, or the response format. The description is minimal and misses critical context for safe invocation.

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 purpose, making it easy to parse quickly despite its brevity.

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 creation/mutation tool with 1 nested parameter), lack of annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what a backup proxy is, what data 'body' requires, or what the tool returns, leaving too many gaps for reliable 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 provides no information about what 'body' should contain, such as required fields like proxy name, type, or configuration. This leaves parameters 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 'Add a new backup proxy' clearly states the action (add) and resource (backup proxy), which is specific enough to understand the basic purpose. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'EnableProxy' or 'UpdateProxy', leaving ambiguity about when to create versus enable or update an existing proxy.

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. With sibling tools like 'EnableProxy' and 'UpdateProxy' available, the description lacks any indication of prerequisites, when creation is appropriate versus enabling an existing proxy, or what happens if a proxy already exists.

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