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 but provides none. 'Export' implies a read operation that generates output, but the description doesn't indicate whether this requires special permissions, what format the output takes (file, JSON, etc.), whether it's a one-time or recurring operation, or any rate limits. For a tool handling sensitive encryption passwords, this lack of behavioral context is particularly problematic.

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 maximally concise at just three words. While this conciseness comes at the expense of completeness, there's absolutely no wasted language or redundant phrasing. Every word carries meaning, and the structure is straightforward with no unnecessary elaboration.

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 handling encryption passwords, the complete lack of annotations, 0% schema description coverage, no output schema, and a nested object parameter, the description is woefully inadequate. It provides minimal context for what should be a sensitive operation with specific requirements and behaviors. The description doesn't address format, scope, security implications, or usage patterns that would be essential for proper tool invocation.

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 in the schema itself. The tool description provides zero information about what the 'body' parameter should contain, what properties it expects, or what format is required. For a tool with a nested object parameter that's completely undocumented in the schema, the description fails to compensate at all for this coverage gap.

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 'Export encryption passwords' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name. It provides a verb ('Export') and resource ('encryption passwords'), but lacks specificity about what format the export takes, where it goes, or what scope it covers. While it distinguishes from obvious non-export siblings, it doesn't differentiate from similar export tools like 'ExportCloudCredentials' or 'ExportCredentials'.

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 absolutely no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are multiple sibling export tools (ExportCloudCredentials, ExportCredentials, ExportJobs, ExportManagedServers, ExportProxies, ExportRepositories), but no indication of when this specific encryption password export is appropriate versus those other exports. No prerequisites, timing considerations, or exclusions are mentioned.

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