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 'Get' which implies a read operation, but doesn't clarify if this initiates a process, requires authentication, has side effects (e.g., generating a code), or involves rate limits. The description lacks critical behavioral context for a tool that likely interacts with identity services.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently communicates the essential action without unnecessary elaboration.

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 likely complexity (involving Microsoft Entra ID and device codes), no annotations, no output schema, and a completely undocumented parameter, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how the device code is used, or provide any context about the app registration workflow, making it insufficient for proper agent usage.

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 tool description provides no information about parameters—it doesn't mention the 'body' parameter at all, what it should contain, or examples of valid inputs. This leaves the parameter 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 clearly states the action ('Get') and the resource ('Microsoft Entra ID device verification code for app registration'), making the purpose understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'FinishAppRegistrationByDeviceCode' or 'GetEntraIdTenantRestoreDeviceCode', but the verb 'Get' suggests this is an initial request step rather than completion or restoration.

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 'FinishAppRegistrationByDeviceCode' or 'GetEntraIdTenantRestoreDeviceCode'. It doesn't mention prerequisites, typical workflows, or exclusion criteria, leaving the agent to 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.