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 of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves roles, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify if it requires authentication, returns paginated results, or handles errors. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency about how it behaves 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, clear sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it efficient and easy to parse, which is ideal for conciseness in tool definitions.

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 moderate complexity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't clarify parameter semantics, distinguish from siblings, or provide behavioral details like authentication needs or return format. This makes it inadequate for an agent to use the tool effectively without additional context.

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 input schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, and the tool description doesn't explain what the 'id' parameter represents (e.g., user ID, group ID, or a generic identifier). This leaves the parameter's meaning ambiguous, failing to compensate for the lack of schema documentation and adding minimal value beyond the schema's structure.

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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('roles assigned to a specific user or group'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'ViewAllUserRoles' or 'ViewUserRole', which appear to serve related but potentially broader or different purposes, preventing 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. With siblings like 'ViewAllUserRoles' (likely lists all roles) and 'ViewUserRole' (likely views a single role by ID), there's no indication of when this tool is preferred, such as for retrieving roles for a specific entity versus general role browsing. This leaves usage context ambiguous.

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