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 implies a creation/mutation operation ('Add a new'), but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether this is idempotent, what happens on failure, or any side effects. 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 directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately front-loaded and concise for a simple action.

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 nested object parameters), lack of annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what a Scale-Out Backup Repository is, what inputs are needed, or what the tool returns, making it incomplete for effective 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 adds no information about what the 'body' should contain (e.g., configuration fields like name, extent settings, performance tier), leaving parameters completely undocumented. This fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 Scale-Out Backup Repository' clearly states the action (add) and resource (Scale-Out Backup Repository), which is better than a tautology. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'CreateRepository' or explain what makes a 'Scale-Out' repository distinct, leaving the purpose somewhat vague in context.

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 like 'CreateRepository' or 'UpdateScaleOutRepository', nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. It merely states what the tool does without contextual usage information.

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