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 of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Get available Unix agent packages,' which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify if this requires authentication, returns paginated results, has rate limits, or what 'available' entails (e.g., latest versions, all versions). The description lacks critical behavioral details needed for safe and effective use.

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: 'Get available Unix agent packages.' It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, with no unnecessary words or redundancy. This makes it easy to parse quickly, though it sacrifices detail for brevity.

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 (a read operation with pagination parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'available' means, how results are returned, or the role of skip/limit parameters. For a tool that likely returns a list of packages, more context is needed to understand its behavior and output.

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 two parameters (skip, limit) with 0% schema description coverage, meaning they are undocumented in the schema. The description doesn't mention these parameters at all, failing to compensate for the coverage gap. However, since there are only two parameters and they are common pagination controls, the baseline is 3, as the description doesn't add value but the schema at least defines their types.

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 available Unix agent packages' states a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('Unix agent packages'), making the basic purpose understandable. However, it doesn't specify what 'available' means (e.g., downloadable, installable, or listed) or distinguish this from the sibling tool 'GetAllAgentPackages' (which presumably gets all agent packages regardless of OS). The purpose is clear but lacks specificity and sibling differentiation.

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 the sibling 'GetAllAgentPackages' or any other Unix-specific tools, nor does it specify prerequisites, contexts, or exclusions. Without such information, an agent must infer usage from the tool name alone, which is insufficient for optimal selection.

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