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 it 'Get[s] a specific repository by ID' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like error handling (e.g., what happens if ID is invalid), permissions required, whether it's a read-only operation, response format, or any rate limits. The description is minimal and lacks necessary context for safe invocation.

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's appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loads the core action, 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 no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't cover parameter details, behavioral aspects, or return values, leaving significant gaps for a tool that likely returns structured repository data. More context is needed 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the single parameter 'id' is undocumented in both schema and description. The description mentions 'by ID' but doesn't explain what format the ID should be (e.g., numeric, string, UUID), where to find it, or provide examples. With low coverage, the description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of detail.

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 repository by ID'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'GetAllRepositories' or 'GetAllRepositoriesStates', which provide broader repository information.

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. With many sibling 'Get' tools (e.g., 'GetAllRepositories', 'GetAllRepositoriesStates'), there's no indication of when this specific ID-based retrieval is preferred over listing tools or other repository-related queries.

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