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 all recovery tokens' but doesn't clarify if this is a read-only operation, whether it requires specific permissions, how it handles pagination (implied by skip/limit parameters), or what the output format is. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with parameters and no output schema.

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, clear sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core purpose ('Get all recovery tokens for bare metal recovery'), making it efficient and easy to parse, though it lacks additional helpful details.

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 no schema descriptions, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain parameter usage, behavioral aspects like pagination or permissions, or what the return data looks like, making it incomplete for effective agent 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?

The input schema has 2 parameters (skip, limit) with 0% description coverage, and the tool description provides no information about these parameters. It doesn't explain what 'skip' and 'limit' mean in this context (e.g., pagination offsets), their expected values, or defaults, failing to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 all') and resource ('recovery tokens for bare metal recovery'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from similar sibling tools like 'GetComputerRecoveryToken' (singular) or other 'GetAll...' tools, which would require explicit differentiation for 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'GetComputerRecoveryToken' (which retrieves a single token) or other recovery-related tools, leaving the agent without usage direction.

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