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 must fully disclose behavioral traits. It states 'Modify', implying a mutation operation, but fails to specify critical details: whether this requires admin permissions, if changes are immediate or scheduled, potential side effects (e.g., disrupting ongoing analyses), or error conditions. The description adds minimal value beyond the implied mutation, leaving significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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, direct sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool name, though this brevity contributes to the lack of detail in other dimensions. The structure is front-loaded with the core action, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 of a mutation tool with no annotations, 1 undocumented parameter (0% schema coverage), no output schema, and nested objects in the schema, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain what modifications are possible, the parameter structure, expected outcomes, or error handling. This leaves the agent ill-equipped to use the tool effectively in 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 ('body') with 0% description coverage and no schema details. The description does not mention parameters at all, offering no insight into what the 'body' should contain (e.g., schedule configuration fields like 'frequency', 'time', 'enabled'). With low schema coverage and no compensatory information, the agent lacks essential guidance for correct invocation.

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 'Modify the Security & Compliance Analyzer schedule' restates the tool name with minimal elaboration. It specifies the verb 'Modify' and the resource 'Security & Compliance Analyzer schedule', but lacks detail on what aspects can be modified (e.g., frequency, timing, enable/disable) and how it differs from siblings like 'GetSecurityAnalyzerSchedule' or 'StartSecurityAnalyzer'. This is a tautological expansion of the name, not a clear, distinct purpose statement.

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 does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing schedule), exclusions, or relationships to sibling tools such as 'GetSecurityAnalyzerSchedule' (for viewing) or 'StartSecurityAnalyzer' (for execution). Without any context, an agent cannot determine appropriate usage scenarios.

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