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 burden. It states 'Get' implying a read operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as authentication needs, error handling (e.g., if ID is invalid), rate limits, or what 'job configuration' entails. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 with no wasted words. It front-loads the key information ('Get a specific job configuration') and efficiently states the parameter context ('by its ID'), making it easy to parse and understand 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 (a read operation with one parameter), no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what a 'job configuration' includes, how to handle errors, or what the return value looks like, leaving significant gaps for the agent to operate 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 description mentions 'by its ID', which aligns with the single 'id' parameter in the schema. However, schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no details about the ID format or constraints. The description adds minimal semantic value (it clarifies the parameter's role) but doesn't compensate fully for the lack of schema documentation, such as specifying ID format or examples.

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 job configuration'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'GetAllJobs' or 'GetAllJobsStates', which could cause confusion about when to use this specific retrieval method versus list operations.

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. With many sibling tools like 'GetAllJobs', 'GetAllJobsStates', and 'GetJob' (this tool), the description lacks context about prerequisites, when this is appropriate versus listing operations, or any exclusions. This leaves the agent without usage direction.

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