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 a read operation ('Get'), which implies non-destructive behavior, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, error handling (e.g., what happens if the ID is invalid), rate limits, or response 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, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. No unnecessary words or redundant information are present.

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 simplicity (1 parameter) but lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what a 'replica' is in this system, what data is returned, or any operational context (e.g., part of backup/recovery workflows). For a tool with no structured support, more explanatory content is needed.

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%, with one parameter 'id' undocumented in the schema. The description adds minimal semantics by implying 'id' is used to identify a replica, but doesn't specify the ID format (e.g., string pattern, UUID), source, or validation rules. It fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 'Get a specific replica by ID' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('replica'), but it's vague about what a 'replica' entails in this context (e.g., backup replica, VM replica, data replica). It distinguishes from siblings like 'GetAllReplicas' by specifying 'specific...by ID', but lacks domain-specific clarity.

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 like 'GetAllReplicas' or 'GetObjectReplicaRestorePoint'. The description implies usage for retrieving a single replica, but doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid replica ID) or exclusions (e.g., not for creating or modifying replicas).

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