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 but provides minimal information. It states this is a 'Get' operation (implying read-only), but doesn't disclose whether this requires specific permissions, what format the token is returned in, whether there are rate limits, or what happens if the ID doesn't exist. For a tool that retrieves sensitive recovery tokens with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate behavioral context.

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 at just 7 words, with zero wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and uses efficient phrasing. While it may be too brief for adequate tool understanding, it earns full marks for conciseness as every word contributes directly to the tool's purpose.

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 purpose (retrieving sensitive recovery tokens), the complete lack of annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what a recovery token is used for, what permissions are required, what the return format looks like, or how this differs from the sibling 'GetAllComputerRecoveryTokens' tool. For a security-sensitive operation, this level of documentation is inadequate.

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 for its single parameter 'id', and the tool description provides no additional parameter information. It mentions 'by ID' but doesn't explain what format the ID should be (UUID, numeric, etc.), where to find valid IDs, or provide any examples. With low schema coverage and no compensation in the description, parameter understanding is severely limited.

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 'Get a specific recovery token by ID', which provides a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('recovery token'). However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'GetAllComputerRecoveryTokens' - both involve getting recovery tokens, with the key difference being single vs. multiple retrieval. The description is vague about what makes this tool unique compared to its sibling.

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 the sibling tool 'GetAllComputerRecoveryTokens' for retrieving multiple tokens, nor does it provide any context about prerequisites, authentication requirements, or appropriate use cases. The agent receives no usage differentiation from the description alone.

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