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 this is a 'Get' operation, implying it's read-only and non-destructive, but doesn't confirm this or add any context about permissions, rate limits, pagination (despite skip/limit parameters), or response format. For a tool with parameters and no annotations, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 that directly states the tool's purpose without any fluff. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word contributes to understanding what the tool does.

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 two undocumented parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't compensate for the lack of structured data by explaining parameter usage, behavioral traits, or return values. For a retrieval tool with pagination parameters, this leaves critical gaps in understanding how to invoke it correctly.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the two parameters (skip and limit) are undocumented in the schema. The description adds no information about these parameters—it doesn't explain their purpose (e.g., for pagination), valid ranges, or default values. This leaves the agent guessing about how to use them effectively.

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 the resource 'all global VM exclusions', specifying that these are 'VMs excluded from all jobs'. It's specific about what the tool retrieves, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'GetGlobalVMExclusion' (singular) or other 'GetAll' tools, which slightly limits its distinctiveness.

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 any prerequisites, context for usage, or comparisons to sibling tools such as 'GetGlobalVMExclusion' (which might fetch a single exclusion) or other retrieval tools in the list. This leaves the agent without direction on appropriate use cases.

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