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 full burden. It states the tool disables a job to prevent scheduled execution, which implies a mutation (non-destructive, reversible change). However, it doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether the job can be re-enabled, side effects, or error conditions. The description is minimal and leaves critical operational details unspecified.

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. It front-loads the core purpose ('Disable a job') and adds clarifying context ('prevents scheduled execution') in a compact form.

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 mutation operation with no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema), the description is inadequate. It lacks details on permissions, reversibility, error handling, and the effect on job state, making it incomplete for safe and effective use by an AI 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%, with one parameter 'id' undocumented in the schema. The description does not add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides (e.g., format of 'id', examples, or constraints). With low schema coverage, the description fails to compensate, but since there's only one parameter, the baseline is slightly higher than minimal.

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 ('Disable') and resource ('a job') with a specific effect ('prevents scheduled execution'). It distinguishes from 'EnableJob' by indicating opposite functionality, though it doesn't explicitly mention other job-related tools like 'DeleteJob' or 'UpdateJob'.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'DeleteJob' or 'UpdateJob' is provided. The description implies it's for preventing scheduled execution, but lacks context about prerequisites, permissions, or when disabling is preferred over other actions.

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