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 for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool enables a job, implying a state change operation, but doesn't mention permissions required, whether this is reversible (e.g., can be disabled again), potential side effects, or what happens if the job is already enabled. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loads the essential information.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and undocumented parameters, the description is insufficient. It needs to address behavioral aspects (permissions, reversibility), parameter details, and potentially what happens upon success/failure. The current description leaves too many contextual gaps for effective tool use.

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 description provides no information about the single parameter 'id' (schema description coverage is 0%). It doesn't explain what the 'id' represents (e.g., job identifier format, where to find it), what values are valid, or how to obtain it. With low schema coverage and no parameter details in the description, this is inadequate.

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 ('Enable') and target resource ('a previously disabled job'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'DisableJob' by indicating the opposite operation, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other job-related tools like 'StartJob' or 'RetryJob'.

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 minimal guidance by implying this tool should be used on 'previously disabled' jobs, but it doesn't specify when to use this versus alternatives like 'StartJob' (which might initiate a job that isn't disabled) or 'RetryJob' (which might retry a failed job). No explicit when-not-to-use guidance or prerequisites are mentioned.

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