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 'Get[s]' data, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify if this requires specific permissions, what data is returned (e.g., mount details, status), or any side effects (e.g., if it triggers refresh). 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 that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, 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 (retrieving a specific mount point), lack of annotations, no output schema, and low schema description coverage, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what information is returned, error conditions, or how the mountId is obtained, leaving the agent with incomplete context for effective use.

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 description implies a 'mountId' parameter by referring to 'a specific' mount point, but doesn't explain what this ID is (e.g., format, source) or provide examples. With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds minimal value beyond the schema's structural definition, meeting the baseline for adequate but incomplete parameter context.

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 the resource ('VMware VM instant recovery mount point'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'GetAllInstantViVMRecoveryMounts' or 'GetInstantHvVMRecoveryMount', which would require mentioning this retrieves a single mount by ID rather than all mounts or mounts for other hypervisors.

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 mount ID), contrast with sibling tools (e.g., 'GetAllInstantViVMRecoveryMounts' for listing all mounts), or specify use cases (e.g., checking mount status before unmounting).

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