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'), implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify if it's safe, requires permissions, has rate limits, or describes the return format (e.g., list structure, pagination). For a tool with 4 parameters and no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary details. It uses clear terminology and avoids redundancy, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word contributes directly to understanding the tool's scope.

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's complexity (4 parameters, no schema descriptions, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on parameter usage, behavioral traits, return values, and differentiation from siblings. For a data retrieval tool in a backup system, more context is needed to ensure correct agent invocation.

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 the schema provides no parameter details. The description mentions 'all managed servers' but doesn't explain the 4 parameters (skip, limit, nameFilter, typeFilter) or their purposes (e.g., pagination, filtering). It lists server types, which might relate to typeFilter, but this is vague. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, failing to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 resource ('all managed servers'), specifying the server types (Windows, Linux, VMware ESXi, Hyper-V) and context ('in the backup infrastructure'). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on managed servers rather than other entities like backups, jobs, or credentials. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar 'GetAll...' tools like GetAllManagedServers (itself) or GetAllUnstructuredDataServers, which slightly reduces specificity.

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 prerequisites, exclusions, or compare with other 'GetAll...' tools (e.g., GetAllUnstructuredDataServers for different server types). The context is implied as part of backup infrastructure management, but no explicit usage scenarios or limitations are stated.

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