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 full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states 'Get' implies a read operation, but doesn't clarify if this requires specific permissions, what data is returned (e.g., mount details, status), whether it's idempotent, or any rate limits. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior and safety.

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, clear sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it efficient and easy to parse. Every part of the sentence contributes essential information, earning a top score for conciseness.

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 (a retrieval tool with no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema), the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what data is returned, error conditions, or how to obtain the 'mountId.' For a tool that likely returns structured mount details, more context is needed to make it actionable without relying on external documentation.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It mentions 'a specific instant file share recovery mount point,' which implies the 'mountId' parameter identifies this mount, adding some context. However, it doesn't explain the format, source, or constraints of 'mountId' (e.g., from a list operation). With one parameter and partial semantic help, this meets the baseline for minimal adequacy.

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 resource ('a specific instant file share recovery mount point'), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'GetAllInstantUnstructuredDataRecoveryMounts' by specifying retrieval of a single mount point rather than all. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with other 'Get' tools for different resource types, keeping it from a perfect 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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a mount ID from a list operation), compare it to sibling tools like 'GetAllInstantUnstructuredDataRecoveryMounts' for bulk retrieval, or specify use cases (e.g., checking mount status). Without this context, users must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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