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 offers minimal behavioral insight. 'Remove' implies a destructive operation, but it doesn't disclose critical details like whether this action is reversible, requires specific permissions, affects associated data, or has side effects. For a deletion tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in safety and operational context.

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, direct sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loads the core action. Every word earns its place, making it highly efficient.

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 tool's destructive nature (implied by 'Remove'), no annotations, 1 undocumented parameter, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks essential context such as behavioral risks, parameter details, and expected outcomes. For a deletion operation, this minimal description is inadequate for safe and 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 with 0% description coverage, and the tool description adds no parameter information. It doesn't explain what 'id' represents (e.g., password identifier, name, or UUID), its format, or where to obtain it. With low schema coverage, the description fails to compensate, leaving the parameter meaning unclear.

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 'Remove an encryption password' clearly states the action (remove) and resource (encryption password). It distinguishes from siblings like 'ChangeEncryptionPassword' and 'CreateEncryptionPassword' by specifying deletion rather than modification or creation. However, it doesn't specify scope (e.g., from where it's removed) or constraints, keeping it from a perfect score.

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. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing the password ID), consequences (e.g., impact on encrypted data), or when not to use it. Sibling tools like 'ChangeEncryptionPassword' and 'CreateEncryptionPassword' exist, but no differentiation is provided.

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