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 for behavioral disclosure. 'Disable' implies a state change that likely requires specific permissions and may affect backup operations, but the description doesn't mention any of this—such as whether it's destructive, requires admin rights, or has side effects. This leaves critical behavioral traits completely undocumented.

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 no wasted words. It's appropriately front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it efficient for quick scanning. Every word earns its place, though this conciseness comes at the cost of completeness.

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 complexity of a state-changing operation with no annotations, no output schema, and a sibling toolset that includes similar actions (delete/enable/update), the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't explain what disabling entails, the prerequisites, the outcome, or how it differs from other tools, making it inadequate for safe and correct usage.

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 0% description coverage for its single parameter 'id', and the tool description adds no information about what 'id' represents (e.g., protection group identifier format, where to find it, or examples). While the parameter count is low, the description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation, leaving the agent guessing about proper usage.

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 'Disable a protection group' clearly states the action (disable) and target resource (protection group), which is better than a tautology. However, it doesn't specify what 'disable' means operationally or how it differs from sibling tools like DeleteProtectionGroup or EnableProtectionGroup, leaving the purpose somewhat vague.

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. With sibling tools like DeleteProtectionGroup, EnableProtectionGroup, and UpdateProtectionGroup available, there's no indication of whether disabling is reversible, temporary, or has different consequences than deletion. This absence of context makes it misleading for an agent trying to choose between similar tools.

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