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. 'Create' implies a write/mutation operation, but the description doesn't disclose any behavioral traits: it doesn't mention permissions required, whether this triggers alerts or notifications, if it's idempotent, what happens on failure, or what the response looks like. 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 extremely concise—a single sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Create') and resource ('manual malware event entry'), making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place, though this conciseness comes at the cost of completeness.

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 creating security events), lack of annotations, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and presence of related sibling tools, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how to structure the input, when to use it versus alternatives, or any behavioral implications. The description alone is inadequate for proper tool invocation.

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% schema description coverage (no descriptions in schema). The description provides no information about parameters—it doesn't explain what the 'body' object should contain, what fields are expected, or what data constitutes a 'manual malware event entry'. With low schema coverage, the description fails to compensate, leaving 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 'Create a manual malware event entry' clearly states the action (create) and resource (manual malware event entry), but it's somewhat vague about what constitutes a 'malware event entry' in this context. It doesn't distinguish this tool from potential siblings like 'ViewSuspiciousActivityEvents' or 'GetSuspiciousActivityEvent', which are clearly related but serve different purposes.

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 siblings like 'ViewSuspiciousActivityEvents' (for viewing) and 'GetSuspiciousActivityEvent' (for retrieving a specific event), there's no indication of when creation is appropriate versus querying existing events. No prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual usage hints are mentioned.

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