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 full burden but only states it retrieves an event without disclosing behavioral traits. It doesn't mention whether this is a read-only operation, requires specific permissions, has rate limits, returns structured data, or handles errors—critical gaps for a tool with zero 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 no wasted words, clearly front-loading the core action. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool, earning full marks for conciseness.

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 a parameter with 0% schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address return values, error handling, permissions, or operational context, making it inadequate for a tool that likely returns complex malware event data.

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 description specifies the 'id' parameter is used to get 'a specific malware event', adding meaning beyond the schema's 0% coverage. However, it doesn't explain the ID format, source, or constraints, leaving the schema to fully define the parameter. With one parameter and low schema coverage, this provides baseline 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 malware event by ID'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'ViewSuspiciousActivityEvents' (plural) or 'GetAllSuspiciousActivityEvent' (if it existed), which would require explicit comparison to achieve a perfect score.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an event ID), exclusions, or compare it to sibling tools like 'ViewSuspiciousActivityEvents' for listing events, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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