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 whether it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns errors for invalid IDs, or provides any output format details. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, 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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimal but adequate for basic understanding. However, it lacks details on authentication needs, error handling, or output structure, which are important for a tool that retrieves a specific resource. Without annotations or output schema, the description should provide more behavioral context to be complete.

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 description mentions the parameter 'ID' ('by ID'), which aligns with the single required parameter in the schema. However, schema description coverage is 0%, and the description doesn't add details like ID format, examples, or constraints. With one parameter and some semantic context, it meets the baseline for minimal parameter information but doesn't compensate fully for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 ('a specific authorization event by ID'), making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'GetAllAuthorizationEvents' by specifying retrieval of a single item rather than all items. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with other 'Get' tools that might retrieve 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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing authorization event ID), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'GetAllAuthorizationEvents' for bulk retrieval. Usage is implied only by the tool name and description.

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