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. 'Remove' implies a destructive mutation, but it doesn't disclose critical behaviors: whether removal is permanent or reversible, if it requires specific permissions, what happens to associated data (e.g., backups), or any confirmation prompts. For a destructive 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, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action, making it easy to parse quickly. No unnecessary details or redundancy are present.

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 (destructive mutation), lack of annotations, no output schema, and minimal parameter documentation, the description is incomplete. It fails to address key aspects like behavioral consequences, error conditions, or return values, leaving the agent with insufficient information to invoke it safely or correctly.

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, meaning the schema provides no semantic details. The description doesn't explicitly mention parameters, but 'Remove a protection group' implies an identifier is needed. Since there's only one parameter, the context is clear enough to infer its purpose, compensating somewhat for the lack of schema details. However, it doesn't specify the ID format or source.

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 a protection group' clearly states the verb ('Remove') and resource ('protection group'), but it's somewhat vague about what removal entails (permanent deletion, archival, or disabling). It doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'DeleteProtectionGroup' (which doesn't exist in the list) or 'DisableProtectionGroup', though 'DeleteBackup' and 'DeleteBackupObject' suggest a deletion pattern. The purpose is understandable but lacks specificity.

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. Sibling tools include 'DisableProtectionGroup' and 'DeleteBackupObject', implying potential alternatives for deactivation or deletion, but the description doesn't mention these or any prerequisites (e.g., ensure no active jobs). Without such context, an agent might misuse it.

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