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. 'Import repository configurations' implies a write operation that creates or updates repository settings, but it doesn't disclose any behavioral traits such as permissions required, whether it overwrites existing configurations, what happens on success/failure, or any side effects. This is inadequate for a mutation 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 extremely concise at just three words, with no wasted language. It is front-loaded and gets straight to the point, though this brevity contributes to its inadequacy in other dimensions. In terms of structure and economy of words, it is optimal.

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 complexity (a mutation operation with a nested object parameter), lack of annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'import' entails, what data format is expected, what the outcome is, or how it differs from related tools. This leaves the agent with insufficient information to use the tool correctly.

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 in the schema itself. The tool description adds no information about what 'body' should contain, its structure, or examples of valid configurations. For a tool with a nested object parameter and no schema documentation, the description fails to compensate, leaving parameters completely undocumented.

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 repository configurations' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'ImportRepositories'. It doesn't specify what 'import' means in this context (e.g., from what source, with what effect), nor does it differentiate from sibling tools like 'ImportCredentials' or 'ImportJobs' that follow similar naming patterns. The purpose is vague rather than specific.

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 are many sibling tools for importing various configurations (e.g., 'ImportCredentials', 'ImportJobs'), but no indication of what makes this tool distinct or when it should be chosen. It lacks any context about prerequisites, exclusions, or typical use cases.

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