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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes a read-only verification action ('Request'), which implies no destructive changes, but doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or what happens if the request fails. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 front-loads the key information: action, resource, and purpose. There's no wasted text, and it's structured to convey the essential details without redundancy.

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 (1 parameter with nested objects, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema), the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain the parameter format, expected output, error conditions, or integration with sibling tools. For a verification tool in a security context, more detail is needed to ensure correct 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 ('body') with 0% description coverage and no details in the schema. The description doesn't explain what 'body' should contain (e.g., server address, port, protocol) or provide any parameter semantics. With low schema coverage and no compensation in the description, this is inadequate for a tool with a nested object parameter.

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 tool's purpose: 'Request a TLS certificate or SSH fingerprint from a server to verify its identity before adding.' It specifies the verb ('Request'), resource ('TLS certificate or SSH fingerprint'), and context ('before adding'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'GetServerCertificate' or 'ChangeCloudCertificate', which appear to handle certificates differently.

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 implies usage context ('before adding'), suggesting this tool is for verification prior to adding a server. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'GetServerCertificate' or 'ChangeCloudCertificate', nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. The context is clear but lacks detailed alternatives.

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