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 full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Remove a license' implies a destructive mutation, but it doesn't specify whether this action is reversible, what permissions are required, whether it affects server functionality, or what happens to licensed features. It also doesn't describe error conditions or rate limits. This leaves significant behavioral gaps for a potentially impactful operation.

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 states the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately front-loaded with the essential information. There's no wasted verbiage or redundant phrasing.

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?

For a destructive operation with no annotations, no output schema, and a complex nested parameter structure (0% schema coverage), the description is severely inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, what the 'body' parameter should contain, or the behavioral implications of license removal. The agent would struggle to use this tool correctly without additional documentation.

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 0% description coverage with one required parameter ('body') that's a nested object with unspecified properties. The description provides absolutely no information about what parameters are needed (e.g., license ID, server identifier, confirmation flags). The agent has no guidance on how to structure the request body for this operation.

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 clearly states the action ('Remove') and target resource ('a license from the Veeam Backup server'), making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings like 'InstallLicense', 'UpdateLicense', and 'RemoveInstanceLicense' by focusing on license removal specifically. However, it doesn't specify whether this removes installed licenses or license assignments, which would make it a perfect 5.

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 'RemoveInstanceLicense', 'RevokeCapacityLicense', or 'RevokeSocketLicense'. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing admin permissions), consequences (e.g., reduced functionality), or typical usage scenarios. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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