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 the full burden. It states a read operation ('Get'), implying it's non-destructive, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits such as permissions needed, rate limits, pagination behavior (implied by skip/limit params but not explained), or response format. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with parameters.

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 is appropriately sized and front-loaded, 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 has 2 parameters with no schema descriptions, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the parameters, behavioral context, or what the output entails (e.g., data format, pagination), leaving too many unknowns 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 input schema has 2 parameters (skip, limit) with 0% description coverage, and the tool description provides no information about them. It doesn't explain what 'skip' and 'limit' mean in the context of license consumption, their units, default values, or constraints, failing to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 capacity license consumption details' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('capacity license consumption details'), which is adequate. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'GetLicensedInstances' or 'GetLicensedSockets', leaving ambiguity about what specific aspect of licensing it retrieves.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'GetLicensedInstances' and 'GetLicensedSockets' present, the description fails to specify if this tool is for overall consumption metrics, detailed breakdowns, or other purposes, offering no usage context.

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