Veeam VBR v13 MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a read operation ('Get'), but doesn't mention whether it requires specific permissions, what the return format looks like, whether results are paginated (though 'skip' and 'limit' parameters suggest pagination), or any rate limits. The description is minimal and lacks crucial behavioral context 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 extremely concise at just one sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently communicates the basic function. However, this conciseness comes at the cost of completeness.

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 3 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain parameter meanings, return values, behavioral constraints, or differentiation from similar tools. For a tool that presumably returns restore point data, more context is needed about what information is returned and how to interpret it.

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 0% description coverage, so parameters 'id', 'skip', and 'limit' are completely undocumented in the schema. The description doesn't compensate by explaining what 'id' refers to (replica ID? object ID?), what 'skip' and 'limit' do (pagination offset and count?), or their expected formats. This leaves significant gaps in parameter understanding.

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 ('restore points for a specific replica'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'GetAllObjectReplicaRestorePoints' or 'GetObjectReplicaRestorePoint', which could cause confusion about when to use this specific tool versus those alternatives.

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 'GetAllObjectReplicaRestorePoints' (which appears to fetch all restore points without specifying a replica) or 'GetObjectReplicaRestorePoint' (which might fetch a single restore point). There's no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual usage scenarios.

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