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 the full burden. It states 'Restore', implying a write/mutation operation, but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether it's destructive (e.g., overwrites existing VMs), rate limits, or what the restore entails (e.g., point-in-time recovery). This is inadequate for a tool that likely performs significant infrastructure changes.

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, clear sentence with no wasted words, making it highly concise and front-loaded. It directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary elaboration, which is efficient for an AI agent to parse.

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 VM restore operation, no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage, the description is severely incomplete. It lacks details on behavior, parameters, return values, and usage context, making it insufficient for safe and effective tool invocation in a production environment.

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 1 parameter ('body') with 0% description coverage, and the tool description provides no information about parameters. The description doesn't mention what 'body' should contain (e.g., VM identifier, restore point, target location), leaving parameters completely undocumented and unusable without external knowledge.

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 the target resource ('an entire VMware Cloud Director VM'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'EntireVmRestoreHv' or 'EntireVmRestoreVmware', which appear to perform similar operations for different platforms, so it loses a point for lack of sibling distinction.

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, prerequisites, or exclusions. Given the sibling list includes other restore tools (e.g., 'EntireVmRestoreHv', 'EntireVmRestoreVmware'), this is a significant gap, as users need to know which tool applies to their specific VMware environment.

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