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 states 'Get' which implies a read operation, but doesn't mention any behavioral traits like pagination (suggested by skip/limit parameters), authentication needs, rate limits, or what the return format looks like. For a tool with three parameters and no output schema, this is a significant gap.

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 directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 (3 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on parameter usage, behavioral context (e.g., pagination, return format), and differentiation from siblings. For a tool that likely returns a list of entities, more context is needed to use it effectively.

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 0% description coverage, meaning all three parameters (id, skip, limit) are undocumented in the schema. The description doesn't add any meaning to these parameters—it doesn't explain what 'id' refers to (e.g., protection group ID), or how 'skip' and 'limit' affect the results. With low schema coverage, the description fails to compensate, leaving parameters largely unexplained.

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 action ('Get') and target resource ('computers discovered by a protection group'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from potential sibling tools like 'GetProtectedComputers' or 'GetInventoryForPG', which might retrieve similar but different data sets, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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. With many sibling tools that might retrieve related data (e.g., 'GetProtectedComputers', 'GetInventoryForPG'), there's no explicit or implied context for choosing this specific tool, leaving usage ambiguous.

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