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 implies a read-only operation ('Get'), but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as permissions required, rate limits, pagination behavior (despite 'skip' and 'limit' parameters), or what 'protected' means in this context. The description adds minimal value beyond the basic action.

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 action and resource, making it easy to parse 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 the complexity (a list operation with pagination parameters), lack of annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address key aspects like return format, pagination behavior, or the definition of 'protected', leaving significant gaps for an AI agent.

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%, so the description must compensate. It mentions no parameters, leaving 'skip' and 'limit' entirely undocumented. The description doesn't explain what these parameters do (e.g., pagination controls), resulting in inadequate parameter semantics.

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 ('protected Linux computers'), making the purpose specific and understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'GetProtectedComputer' (singular) by specifying 'all', but doesn't explicitly contrast with other list tools like 'GetAllBackupObjects' or 'GetAllManagedServers'.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, context for 'protected' status, or how it differs from other computer-related tools in the sibling list (e.g., 'GetAllInventoryHosts').

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