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 full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is a read operation ('Get'), but doesn't mention whether it requires specific permissions, how results are returned (e.g., pagination, format), rate limits, or error conditions. For a tool with 3 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 appropriately sized for a straightforward retrieval tool and front-loads the essential information.

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 has 3 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how to interpret parameters, or any behavioral aspects. For a tool with this level of complexity and lack of structured documentation, the description should provide much more context.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so parameters 'id', 'skip', and 'limit' are completely undocumented in the schema. The description mentions 'for a specific backup object' which hints at the 'id' parameter purpose, but provides no details about parameter formats, what 'skip' and 'limit' control, or any constraints. The description doesn't adequately compensate for the schema's lack of documentation.

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 restore points for a specific backup object'), making the purpose unambiguous. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'GetAllObjectRestorePoints' or 'GetObjectRestorePoint', but the specificity of 'for a specific backup object' provides some implicit distinction.

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 like 'GetAllObjectRestorePoints' or 'GetObjectRestorePoint'. The description states what it does but offers no context about prerequisites, typical use cases, or comparison with sibling tools.

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