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 full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It mentions 'Get credentials' which implies a read operation, but doesn't disclose if this is safe, requires specific permissions, involves rate limits, or what the output format might be. The description lacks details on authentication needs, error handling, or side effects, leaving significant gaps for a tool that likely interacts with sensitive authorization data.

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 for a simple tool, though it could benefit from more detail given the complexity implied by the context. The structure is front-loaded with the core action, but lacks elaboration that might aid understanding.

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 likely complexity (involving device code authorization and Entra ID restore), no annotations, no output schema, and a parameter with 0% schema coverage, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what credentials are retrieved, how they're used, or any behavioral nuances. The description alone leaves too many open questions for effective tool invocation in a security-sensitive context.

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 adds no information about what the 'body' parameter should contain, such as device code details, tenant identifiers, or other required fields. For a single parameter with no schema documentation, the description fails to compensate, leaving the parameter's purpose and format completely unspecified.

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 credentials after device code authorization for Entra ID restore' which provides a verb ('Get credentials') and resource context ('Entra ID restore'), but it's vague about what specific credentials are retrieved and how they relate to the device code flow. It doesn't clearly differentiate from sibling tools like 'GetEntraIdTenantRestoreDeviceCode' or 'StartEntraIDTenantRestore', leaving ambiguity about its exact role.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description implies it follows device code authorization, but it doesn't specify prerequisites, timing, or when not to use it. Sibling tools like 'FinishAppRegistrationByDeviceCode' or 'RequestAppRegistrationByDeviceCode' suggest related functionality, but no comparisons or exclusions are mentioned.

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