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. 'Restore' implies a significant write operation, but the description doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits like whether this overwrites existing data, requires specific permissions, has destructive consequences, involves timeouts, or provides progress tracking. For a major recovery operation with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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, focused sentence that states exactly what the tool does without unnecessary words. It's perfectly front-loaded with the core functionality, making it efficient for quick understanding.

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 tool performing a major restoration operation with no annotations, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and a complex nested parameter, the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral risks, parameter requirements, success/failure outcomes, or differentiation from similar tools, leaving critical gaps for safe and effective 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% with 1 parameter ('body') that's a nested object. The description provides no information about what the 'body' parameter should contain - no indication of required fields, format, or examples. The description fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation, leaving the parameter essentially undocumented.

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 ('Restore') and resource ('an entire object storage bucket or container'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'EntireUnstructuredDataShareRestore' or 'InstantUnstructuredDataRecoveryMount', but the verb+resource combination is specific enough for basic understanding.

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 many sibling tools related to unstructured data recovery and restoration, there's no indication of prerequisites, target scenarios, or differences from tools like 'EntireUnstructuredDataShareRestore' or 'InstantUnstructuredDataRecoveryMount'.

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