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 but fails to disclose behavioral traits. It does not indicate if deletion is permanent, requires specific permissions, has side effects, or returns confirmation. The term 'delete' implies a destructive mutation, but no details are given, making it inadequate for safe agent use.

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, making it highly concise. However, this brevity contributes to underspecification rather than clarity, as it lacks necessary details for effective tool use.

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 destructive nature implied by 'delete', no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It does not address safety, parameters, outcomes, or integration with sibling tools, failing to provide a usable context for the agent.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate but adds no parameter information. It does not explain what 'id' represents (e.g., token identifier format or source), leaving the single required parameter undocumented. This fails to bridge the coverage gap.

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 'Delete a recovery token' restates the tool name with minimal expansion, making it tautological. While it identifies the action (delete) and resource (recovery token), it lacks specificity about what a recovery token is or its context, offering no differentiation from sibling tools like DeleteBackup or DeleteCreds beyond the resource name.

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. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., token existence), consequences, or related tools like CreateComputerRecoveryToken or GetComputerRecoveryToken, leaving the agent without context for appropriate invocation.

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