Veeam VBR v13 MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states a read operation ('Get'), which implies non-destructive behavior, but doesn't address critical aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what the output looks like (e.g., JSON structure). This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves in practice.

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 extremely concise with a single sentence, 'Get settings for switchover to Azure.' It is front-loaded and wastes no words, making it easy to parse quickly. However, this brevity comes at the cost of completeness, as noted in other dimensions.

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 (involving Azure recovery operations), lack of annotations, no output schema, and low parameter schema coverage, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the nature of the settings, how they relate to switchover processes, or what to expect from the tool. For a tool in a recovery context, more detail is needed to ensure proper usage.

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 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, and the tool description adds no information about the 'mountId' parameter. It doesn't explain what 'mountId' is (e.g., an identifier for a recovery mount), its format, or where to obtain it. Given the low schema coverage, the description fails to compensate, leaving the parameter's meaning and usage unclear.

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 'Get settings for switchover to Azure' states a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('settings for switchover to Azure'), but it's vague about what these settings entail (e.g., configuration details, parameters, or options). It doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'GetAzureInstantVMRecoveryMount' or 'AzureInstantVMRecoverySwitchover', leaving ambiguity about scope and 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?

No explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies it's for retrieving settings, but there's no mention of prerequisites, related tools (e.g., 'UpdateAzureInstantVMRecoverySwitchoverSettings'), or specific contexts like before performing a switchover. This lack of guidance could lead to misuse or confusion with sibling operations.

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