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 like required permissions, rate limits, whether it returns all settings or a subset, or error conditions. For a read 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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Get notification settings') and adds clarifying examples ('on-screen alerts, etc.') without unnecessary elaboration. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 0 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks context about the return format, permissions, or relationship to other settings tools. For a simple read operation, it meets the bare minimum but doesn't provide a complete picture 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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the lack of inputs. The description doesn't need to add parameter details, and it appropriately doesn't mention any. A baseline of 4 is justified as the description doesn't mislead about parameters.

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' and the resource 'notification settings', with specific examples like 'on-screen alerts, etc.' This makes the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'UpdateNotificationsSettings' or 'GetEmailSettings', which would be needed for a perfect score.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context for retrieval, or contrast with related tools like 'UpdateNotificationsSettings' or 'GetEmailSettings'. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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