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 of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Remove a VM from the global exclusion list,' which implies a destructive mutation, but does not specify permissions required, side effects (e.g., if protection resumes), error conditions, or confirmation steps. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior and risks.

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, clear sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and efficiently conveys the core action without redundancy or fluff, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 complexity (a destructive operation with no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema), the description is inadequate. It lacks details on parameters, behavioral outcomes, error handling, and usage context. For a mutation tool that could have significant side effects, more completeness is needed to guide safe and correct 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 one parameter ('id') with 0% description coverage, so the schema provides no semantic context. The description does not mention the 'id' parameter at all, failing to compensate for the schema's lack of detail. However, since there is only one parameter, the baseline is higher, but the description adds no value beyond what is inferred from the tool name.

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 clearly states the action ('Remove') and the target resource ('a VM from the global exclusion list'), which matches the tool name. It is specific enough to understand the core function. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'CreateGlobalVMExclusion' or 'GetGlobalVMExclusion', though the verb 'Remove' implies a deletion operation distinct from creation or retrieval.

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, prerequisites, or exclusions. It lacks context such as whether the VM must already be on the exclusion list, what happens after removal, or if there are dependencies. Without such information, the agent has minimal direction for appropriate usage.

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