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 a read operation ('Get'), implying non-destructive behavior, but fails to disclose critical traits like pagination handling (via skip/limit parameters), authentication needs, rate limits, or return format. For a tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, this is a significant gap in behavioral context.

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 zero waste. It front-loads the core purpose ('Get all backup objects') and adds clarifying scope ('across all backups'). No extraneous details or redundancy are present, making it optimally concise for its limited content.

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, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks parameter explanations, behavioral details, usage guidelines, and output information. While conciseness is high, it doesn't provide enough context for an agent to reliably invoke the tool or interpret results, especially compared to richer siblings.

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 no parameters, leaving all 4 (skip, limit, nameFilter, platformFilter) undocumented. While the tool name and description imply filtering capabilities, it doesn't explain parameter roles, formats, or interactions, failing to add meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema.

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 clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('all backup objects (VMs, servers)'), specifying it operates 'across all backups.' This distinguishes it from tools like 'GetBackupObjectsWithFiltering' or 'GetBackupObject' by emphasizing comprehensive retrieval without filtering by default. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all siblings, keeping it from a perfect score.

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 siblings like 'GetBackupObjectsWithFiltering' and 'GetBackupObject' that likely offer more targeted queries, the description lacks any mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or comparative contexts. This omission leaves the agent without direction for tool selection.

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