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. It states this is a 'get' operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't confirm if it's safe, what permissions are required, whether it returns detailed metadata or just basic info, or if there are rate limits. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this minimal description fails to provide adequate behavioral context for safe invocation.

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 with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose ('Get a specific Azure instant recovery mount point'), making it easy to parse. Every word earns its place, achieving maximum efficiency without sacrificing readability.

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 no annotations, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and a single parameter, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what data is returned, how 'mountId' is structured, or the tool's behavioral traits. For a retrieval tool in a complex system with many siblings, more context is needed to ensure correct usage without relying on external knowledge.

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%, with one required parameter 'mountId' undocumented in both schema and description. The description mentions 'specific' mount point, implying 'mountId' identifies it, but adds no semantic value beyond what's inferable from the parameter name. It doesn't explain what a mountId is, its format, or where to obtain it, leaving a critical gap in parameter understanding.

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 states the tool's purpose as retrieving a specific Azure instant recovery mount point, which is clear but basic. It doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'GetAllAzureInstantVMRecoveryMounts' (plural) or 'AzureInstantVMRecoveryMount' (action tool), leaving ambiguity about when to use each. The description is functional but lacks specificity about what distinguishes this 'get' operation from related operations.

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. With sibling tools like 'GetAllAzureInstantVMRecoveryMounts' (for listing all mounts) and 'AzureInstantVMRecoveryMount' (for creating mounts), the description offers no context about prerequisites, when this retrieval is appropriate, or what distinguishes it from other mount-related operations. This leaves the agent without usage direction.

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