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 all' implies a read-only operation, the description doesn't address important behavioral aspects like whether this requires specific permissions, what format the results return, whether results are paginated (despite skip/limit parameters), or any rate limits. The description adds minimal value beyond the basic operation name.

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 states the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple listing operation and front-loads the essential information. Every word earns its place in communicating the basic function.

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?

For a tool with two undocumented parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and numerous similar sibling tools, the description is inadequate. It provides only the basic operation without addressing parameter semantics, behavioral characteristics, or differentiation from alternatives. The description fails to compensate for the lack of structured documentation, leaving significant gaps in understanding how to properly use this tool.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage for both parameters (skip and limit), the description provides no information about parameter meaning, usage, or constraints. The description doesn't mention these parameters at all, leaving them completely undocumented. For a tool with two parameters that are entirely undocumented in the schema, this represents a significant gap in parameter 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 all') and target resource ('active instant file share recovery mount points'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'GetAllAzureInstantVMRecoveryMounts' or 'GetAllInstantHvVMRecoveryMounts' that appear to serve similar listing functions for different resource types.

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, prerequisites, or exclusions. With numerous sibling tools that appear to perform similar listing operations for different resource types (VM recovery mounts, unstructured data servers, etc.), the lack of comparative context leaves the agent guessing about appropriate usage scenarios.

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