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 marks objects as 'clean', implying a mutation operation, but doesn't specify required permissions, whether changes are reversible, side effects (e.g., on backup integrity), or response behavior. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves critical behavioral traits undisclosed.

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 that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action, making it easy to parse. However, it could benefit from a bit more structure (e.g., separating purpose from context) to enhance clarity without losing conciseness.

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 (mutation operation with a nested parameter), lack of annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral risks, parameter details, or expected outcomes, making it inadequate for safe and effective use. More context is needed to compensate for missing structured data.

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 no details on its structure. The description mentions 'specific backup objects' but doesn't explain how to identify them in the 'body' parameter (e.g., IDs, names, formats). With low schema coverage, the description fails to compensate by clarifying parameter usage, leaving it ambiguous.

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's purpose as 'Mark specific backup objects as clean (no malware)', which includes a verb ('Mark'), resource ('backup objects'), and outcome ('clean (no malware)'). However, it lacks specificity about what 'clean' means operationally and doesn't differentiate from siblings like 'CreateSuspiciousActivityEvent' or 'StartMalwareBackupScan', which may relate to malware handling. The purpose is clear but could be more distinct.

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., after a malware scan), exclusions, or related tools like 'DeleteBackupObject' or 'StartMalwareBackupScan'. Without such context, users must infer usage from the purpose alone, which is insufficient for effective tool selection.

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