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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action is 'remove,' implying a destructive mutation, but doesn't specify if this requires special permissions, is reversible, has side effects, or what the expected outcome is. This leaves 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, clear sentence with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loads the essential information efficiently.

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 destructive mutation with no annotations, 1 undocumented parameter, and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It fails to address critical aspects like behavioral implications, parameter meaning, or expected results, making it inadequate for safe and effective use.

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 with 0% description coverage, but the description doesn't add any semantic details about 'instanceId' (e.g., what it refers to, format, or examples). Since the parameter count is low (1), the baseline is 4, but the lack of any parameter explanation in the description reduces it to 3.

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 'Remove an instance license record' clearly states the action (remove) and target resource (instance license record), which is adequate. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'RemoveLicense' or 'RevokeInstanceLicense', leaving ambiguity about when to use this specific tool versus alternatives.

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 like 'RemoveLicense' or 'RevokeInstanceLicense', nor does it mention prerequisites, dependencies, or exclusions. It lacks any context for selection among similar-sounding tools.

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