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. It mentions the tool retrieves 'current state and capacity' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it's read-only (implied by 'Get'), potential performance impact, rate limits, authentication needs, or error conditions. For a tool with no annotations, 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 concise with two short sentences that are front-loaded with the core purpose. There's no unnecessary verbosity, though it could be slightly more structured by explicitly listing key details like parameters or behavioral notes.

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 (a read operation with 3 parameters), lack of annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'state' entails, the format of capacity data, or how parameters affect results, leaving the agent with insufficient context for effective use.

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 3 parameters (skip, limit, nameFilter) with 0% description coverage, meaning the schema provides no semantic information. The description doesn't mention any parameters, failing to compensate for the low schema coverage. This leaves the agent guessing about parameter purposes, such as pagination (skip/limit) or filtering (nameFilter).

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 ('current state and capacity of all repositories'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'GetAllRepositories' (which likely returns basic repository info without capacity metrics) or 'GetAllRepositoriesStates' (which appears to be the same tool based on the name), so it misses full sibling differentiation.

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 minimal guidance with 'Essential for capacity monitoring,' which implies a monitoring context but doesn't specify when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'GetAllRepositories' for basic info or other state-checking tools). No explicit when-not-to-use or prerequisite information is given.

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