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 'Import jobs' which implies a write/mutation operation, but doesn't disclose critical traits: whether it requires specific permissions, if it overwrites existing jobs, what happens on errors (e.g., partial imports), or any rate limits. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior and risks.

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 zero waste: 'Import jobs from a JSON specification.' It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. There's no unnecessary verbiage or redundancy, fitting the tool's purpose without overcomplication.

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 complexity (mutation tool with nested parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage), the description is incomplete. It doesn't address the mutation's impact (e.g., idempotency, error handling), the parameter details, or the return values. For a tool that likely modifies system state, this lack of context poses a risk for correct agent usage.

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 ('body') with 0% description coverage, and the description adds minimal value. It mentions 'JSON specification' which hints at the 'body' content, but doesn't explain the expected structure, required fields, or examples. For a tool with nested objects and no schema documentation, this is inadequate compensation, leaving the parameter largely undefined.

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 'Import jobs from a JSON specification' clearly states the verb ('Import') and resource ('jobs'), but it's vague about the scope and mechanism. It doesn't specify whether this creates, updates, or replaces jobs, or what 'JSON specification' entails, making it less specific than ideal. It distinguishes from siblings like 'CreateJob' or 'ExportJobs' by focusing on import, but lacks detail on how it differs operationally.

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 exported jobs from 'ExportJobs'), when it's appropriate (e.g., for bulk operations), or what happens if conflicts arise. With many sibling tools like 'CreateJob' and 'UpdateJob', the lack of context leaves the agent guessing about the best use case.

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