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 action ('Restore') which implies a potentially destructive operation, but fails to specify critical details like required permissions, whether this overwrites existing VMs, recovery point selection, or expected outcomes. This is inadequate for a tool that likely performs significant system 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 that efficiently communicates the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately front-loaded with the essential information, though its brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions.

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 complex restoration tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a completely undocumented parameter schema, the description is severely incomplete. It identifies the tool type but provides none of the operational context, parameter guidance, or behavioral details needed 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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage with one complex parameter ('body' as an object with additionalProperties). The description provides no information about what parameters are needed, what the 'body' should contain, or any required fields. This leaves the parameter 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 target resource ('an entire Microsoft Hyper-V VM'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'EntireVmRestoreVmware' or 'EntireVmRestoreCloudDirector' beyond specifying Hyper-V, which is somewhat implied but not explicitly contrasted.

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 contextual constraints. It lacks any mention of when-not-to-use scenarios or references to sibling tools, leaving the agent with insufficient context for proper selection.

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