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 it's a read operation ('Get'), implying it's non-destructive, but doesn't cover critical aspects like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or what happens if the ID is invalid. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. 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 simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on parameter meanings, behavioral traits (e.g., read-only nature, error responses), and doesn't leverage the absence of annotations to provide necessary context. For a basic retrieval tool, it should at least clarify parameter roles and expected outcomes.

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 with 0% description coverage, and the tool description doesn't add any parameter details. It mentions 'by ID' but doesn't clarify the purpose of 'id' versus 'entityId', their formats, or relationships. With low schema coverage, the description fails to compensate, leaving parameters undocumented.

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 'Get a specific discovered entity by ID' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('discovered entity'), but it's vague about what a 'discovered entity' entails and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'GetDiscoveredEntities' (plural). It specifies retrieval by ID, which is helpful but lacks context about the entity type or system.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing discovered entity), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'GetDiscoveredEntities' for listing multiple entities. The description implies usage for retrieval by ID but offers no contextual boundaries.

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