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 'Get' which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify if this requires specific permissions, returns real-time or cached data, has rate limits, or what the output format looks like. The description lacks essential behavioral context for a tool that likely accesses compliance results.

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 gets straight to the point without unnecessary words. It's appropriately front-loaded with the core purpose, though it could be more structured by including parameter or usage 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 complexity of compliance results retrieval, no annotations, no output schema, and 2 undocumented parameters, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'results' means (e.g., report, status, violations), how they're formatted, or any behavioral aspects. For a tool that likely returns structured compliance data, this leaves significant gaps.

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 2 parameters (skip, limit) with 0% description coverage, meaning the schema doesn't explain what these parameters do. The description provides no information about parameters, failing to compensate for the schema gap. It doesn't mention pagination, result filtering, or how skip/limit affect the compliance results retrieval.

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 'Get Security & Compliance Analyzer results (best practices compliance)' which clearly indicates it retrieves compliance results. However, it doesn't specify what type of results (e.g., report, status, details) or how they're presented, and doesn't distinguish it from potential sibling tools like 'GetSecurityAnalyzerSession' or 'GetSecurityAnalyzerSchedule' that might relate to the same domain.

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, timing (e.g., after running a scan), or differentiate it from other 'Get' tools in the sibling list that might retrieve related compliance or security data, leaving the agent with no usage context.

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