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 for behavioral disclosure. 'Get' implies a read-only operation, but the description doesn't specify whether this requires special permissions, whether the data is cached or real-time, what format the settings are returned in, or any rate limits. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 extremely concise at just 5 words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, with zero wasted words. While it may be too brief for completeness, as a standalone statement it's efficiently structured.

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?

For a tool with no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'switchover settings' include, what the mountId parameter means, or what format the response takes. Given the complexity implied by the tool name and the lack of structured documentation, 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?

The schema has 0% description coverage for the single parameter 'mountId'. The description provides no information about what 'mountId' represents, what format it should be in, where to obtain it, or examples of valid values. With low schema coverage and no parameter clarification in the description, this is inadequate for proper tool invocation.

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 file share switchover settings' clearly indicates a retrieval operation (Get) on a specific resource (file share switchover settings). However, it doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'GetAzureInstantVMRecoverySwitchoverSettings' or 'UpdateUnstructuredDataShareIRSwitchoverSettings' - the purpose is clear but lacks sibling differentiation.

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. There's no mention of prerequisites, when this should be used instead of similar 'Get' tools for different resource types, or what context requires retrieving switchover settings specifically. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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