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 states 'Get all' which implies a read operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether it's paginated (given skip/limit params), rate limits, authentication requirements, or what 'four-eyes authorization events' entail. The description is minimal and lacks necessary context for safe invocation.

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 and directly states the tool's function, making it highly concise and well-structured for its 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 has 2 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain parameter usage, return values, or behavioral constraints. For a tool with undocumented inputs and no structured hints, the description fails to provide enough context for 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'all' but doesn't explain the 'skip' and 'limit' parameters or their purpose (e.g., pagination). No parameter details are provided in the description, leaving the agent to infer usage from parameter names alone, which is insufficient.

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 all four-eyes authorization events' specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('four-eyes authorization events'), which is clear. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling 'GetAuthorizationEvent' (singular), leaving ambiguity about when to use one versus the other. The purpose is understandable but lacks 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With a sibling tool 'GetAuthorizationEvent' (likely for retrieving a single event), the description fails to indicate whether this tool is for bulk retrieval, filtering, or different use cases. There are no explicit when/when-not instructions or prerequisites mentioned.

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