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-only operation, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination behavior (despite skip/limit parameters), or what the output looks like. For a tool with parameters and no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.

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 with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place, though this conciseness comes at the cost of detail.

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 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain parameter usage, behavioral aspects, or return values. For a tool that likely involves data retrieval with pagination, more context is needed to use it 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 input schema has two parameters (skip, limit) with 0% description coverage, meaning their purpose is undocumented in the schema. The description adds no information about these parameters, failing to compensate for the schema gap. It doesn't explain what 'skip' and 'limit' mean in the context of license consumption details (e.g., pagination offsets and result counts).

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 instance license consumption details' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('instance license consumption details'), making the purpose understandable. However, it's somewhat vague about what 'instance license consumption' entails and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'GetLicensedCapacity' or 'GetLicensedSockets', which likely retrieve related but different license information.

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. With sibling tools like 'GetLicensedCapacity' and 'GetLicensedSockets' present, there's no indication of what distinguishes this tool (e.g., whether it's for per-instance details vs. aggregate metrics). No prerequisites, exclusions, or context for usage are mentioned.

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