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. While 'Get' implies a read operation, the description doesn't specify whether this requires special permissions, what happens if the mountId doesn't exist, or what format the response takes. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral questions unanswered.

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 one sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and doesn't include any unnecessary information or repetition.

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, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the single-sentence description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what an FCD instant recovery mount point is, what information the tool returns, or how to use the mountId parameter effectively in the broader context of the system.

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 its single parameter 'mountId', and the tool description provides no information about what mountId represents, what format it should be in, or where to obtain valid mountId values. The description doesn't compensate for the complete lack of parameter documentation in the schema.

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 states the tool 'Get a specific FCD instant recovery mount point' which provides a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('FCD instant recovery mount point'). However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'GetAllVmwareFcdInstantRecoveryMountModels' or explain what makes this 'specific' version different from the 'get all' version.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites, when this should be used instead of the 'get all' version, or what context requires retrieving a single mount point rather than listing all available ones.

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