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 the tool retrieves data ('Get all'), implying a read-only operation, but does not mention critical behaviors such as pagination (handled via 'skip' and 'limit' parameters), filtering capabilities, sorting options, or potential performance impacts for large datasets. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves beyond basic retrieval.

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 that efficiently conveys the core purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and wastes no space, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 (9 undocumented parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is insufficient. It only covers the basic purpose, missing details on parameter usage, behavioral traits (e.g., pagination, filtering), and output format, which are essential for effective tool invocation in this context.

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 9 parameters with 0% description coverage, meaning none are documented in the schema. The description does not mention any parameters or their purposes (e.g., 'skip', 'limit', 'nameFilter'), failing to compensate for the lack of schema documentation. This leaves the agent with no semantic understanding of what the parameters control.

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 the resource ('backup, replication, and copy jobs configured on the Veeam Backup server'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'GetJob' (which likely fetches a single job) or 'GetAllJobsStates' (which likely returns status information), leaving room for ambiguity in sibling context.

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 (e.g., 'GetJob', 'GetAllJobsStates', 'ExportJobs'), there is no indication of prerequisites, constraints, or comparative use cases, leaving the agent without direction on tool selection.

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