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. It fails to describe whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, what the return format is (e.g., list, pagination), or any side effects. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the basic action.

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 no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool and front-loads the core action, though it could benefit from additional context.

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 complexity (1 parameter with nested objects, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the parameter's purpose, return values, or behavioral traits, leaving significant gaps for an agent to understand how to invoke the tool 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description provides no parameter information. The input schema includes a 'body' parameter with nested objects, but the description doesn't explain what this parameter does (e.g., filtering options, request body content). This leaves parameters undocumented and unclear.

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 'Get all protection groups' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('protection groups'), making the purpose understandable. However, it lacks specificity about scope or format, and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'GetProtectionGroup' (singular) or 'GetAllProtectionGroups' (plural form with same name).

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. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, nor does it compare with sibling tools like 'GetProtectionGroup' (singular retrieval) or 'GetInventoryForPG' (inventory-focused).

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