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 only states the action without behavioral context. It doesn't disclose whether this is destructive, requires specific permissions, has confirmation steps, affects dependent resources, or provides any response format. 'Remove' implies mutation but lacks critical safety and operational details.

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 with a single clear sentence that communicates the core purpose efficiently. There's no wasted verbiage or unnecessary elaboration.

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?

For a destructive mutation tool with no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It should explain consequences, permissions, error conditions, and parameter details to be complete. The current description leaves too many critical questions unanswered for safe operation.

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% with one parameter ('id'), and the description provides no information about this parameter. It doesn't explain what the ID represents, format requirements, or where to obtain it. The description fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation.

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 target resource ('a backup proxy'), providing specific verb+resource combination. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like 'DeleteBackup' or 'DeleteRepository', but the resource specificity is adequate.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, consequences, or relationship to other proxy-related tools like 'DisableProxy' or 'CreateProxy'.

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