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 this is a read operation ('Get details'), which implies it's non-destructive, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what 'details' include (e.g., server status, configuration). For a tool with zero 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 zero waste. It front-loads the key information ('Get details of a specific managed server') and adds necessary qualification ('by ID'). Every word earns its place, making it appropriately sized for a simple lookup tool.

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 low complexity (1 parameter, no nested objects) but lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'details' are returned (e.g., server properties, status), potential errors, or dependencies. For a read operation in a server management context, more context on the return value and behavior is needed to be fully helpful.

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 the parameter 'by ID', which aligns with the single required 'id' parameter in the schema. However, schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no details about the 'id' parameter. The description adds minimal semantics (it's an ID for a managed server) but doesn't specify format (e.g., numeric, UUID), source, or validation rules. With low coverage, it partially compensates but not fully.

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 verb ('Get details') and resource ('of a specific managed server by ID'), making the purpose explicit. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like 'GetAllManagedServers' (which lists all) and 'UpdateManagedServer' (which modifies), though it doesn't explicitly name these alternatives. The description is specific but lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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 like 'GetAllManagedServers' or 'GetManagedServerVolume'. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid server ID) or contextual constraints. Usage is implied by the phrase 'by ID', but no explicit when/when-not instructions are given.

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