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 for behavioral disclosure. It fails to describe what 'export' does (e.g., file generation, API response, data format), whether it's read-only or has side effects, permissions required, or any constraints like rate limits. The description is insufficient for a mutation-like operation.

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 with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for the minimal information it conveys, though this conciseness comes at the cost of completeness.

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 (1 parameter with nested objects, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema), the description is severely inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool does beyond the name, how to use it, what parameters mean, or what to expect in return, failing to compensate for missing structured data.

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 is a nested object with no documented properties. The description adds no information about what 'body' should contain (e.g., repository IDs, export options, filters), leaving parameters completely 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 'Export repository configurations' states a basic purpose but is vague about what 'export' entails (e.g., format, destination, scope) and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'ExportCredentials' or 'ExportJobs'. It's slightly better than a tautology but lacks specificity.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'ExportRepositories' vs. 'ExportCredentials'), prerequisites, or exclusions. The description offers no usage context, leaving the agent to guess based on the tool name alone.

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