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' which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling (e.g., what happens if the ID is invalid), or return format. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 front-loads the essential information ('Get a specific restore point by ID') efficiently, making it easy to parse and understand 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 no annotations, no output schema, and low schema description coverage (0%), the description is inadequate. It lacks details on behavior, error handling, return values, and usage context. For a tool that likely interacts with backup/restore systems, more information 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description adds meaning by specifying that the 'id' parameter is used to identify 'a specific restore point'. However, it doesn't explain the format, source, or constraints of the ID (e.g., whether it's a UUID, numeric, or from another tool). With one parameter and low schema coverage, this provides some but incomplete compensation.

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 resource ('a specific restore point by ID'), making the purpose unambiguous. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'GetAllObjectRestorePoints' or 'GetObjectReplicaRestorePoint', but the specificity of 'by ID' implies a single-item retrieval versus bulk operations.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'GetAllObjectRestorePoints' or 'GetObjectReplicaRestorePoint' is provided. The description implies usage when you have a specific restore point ID, but lacks context on prerequisites, error conditions, or comparisons to sibling tools.

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