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. It implies a read operation ('Get') but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination behavior (hinted by 'skip' and 'limit' parameters but not explained), error handling, or whether it returns all objects or filtered subsets. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how to invoke it safely and effectively.

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 front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to scan. Every word earns its place, though it could benefit from more detail.

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 tool's complexity (4 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover parameter meanings, behavioral context, or output expectations, leaving the agent with insufficient information to use the tool correctly without trial and error.

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%, so the schema provides no parameter details. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema—it doesn't explain what 'id' refers to (e.g., domain identifier), how 'nameFilter' works, or the purpose of 'skip' and 'limit' for pagination. With 4 parameters and no schema descriptions, this is inadequate.

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 'Get Active Directory objects from a specific domain' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('Active Directory objects'), but it's vague about scope and type. It doesn't specify what kind of objects (e.g., users, groups, computers) or how they're retrieved, and it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'GetUser' or 'GetAllInventoryObjects'.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., domain connectivity), exclusions, or comparisons to similar tools in the sibling list, such as 'GetUser' for user-specific queries or 'GetAllInventoryObjects' for broader inventory.

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