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 for behavioral disclosure. While 'Get' implies a read operation, it doesn't address important aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination behavior (implied by skip/limit parameters but not explained), or what constitutes 'all' tenants in this context. The description is too minimal for a tool with parameters.

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 extremely concise - a single sentence that states the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the essential information, though this brevity comes at the cost of completeness.

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 inadequate. It doesn't explain what the parameters do, what the return format looks like, or any behavioral constraints. For a retrieval tool with pagination parameters, this leaves too many gaps 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 parameters 'skip' and 'limit' are completely undocumented in the schema. The description provides no information about these parameters - it doesn't mention pagination, filtering, or any usage context for these inputs. The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation.

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 action ('Get') and resource ('all Microsoft Entra ID (Azure AD) tenants'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'GetEntraIDTenants' (which appears to be a similar retrieval tool), so it misses the highest clarity mark.

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. With many sibling tools present (including 'GetEntraIDTenants'), there's no indication of differences in scope, filtering capabilities, or appropriate contexts for selection.

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