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 behavior. It only states the action without details on effects, permissions required, whether it's destructive or read-only, rate limits, or expected outcomes. For a tool that likely triggers system-wide operations, this lack of transparency is inadequate and could lead to misuse.

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 extremely concise with a single sentence, 'Rescan all replicas.', which is front-loaded and wastes no words. It directly states the action without unnecessary elaboration, making it efficient for quick parsing.

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 implied by a tool that scans all replicas, the description is severely incomplete. No annotations, output schema, or detailed parameters are provided, and the description doesn't explain what 'rescan' does, what triggers it, or what results to expect. For a potentially impactful operation, this leaves critical gaps.

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 one parameter ('body') with 0% description coverage and no details in the schema. The description adds no information about parameters, such as what 'body' should contain or if it's optional. With low schema coverage and no compensation in the description, parameter understanding is minimal.

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 'Rescan all replicas' restates the tool name with minimal elaboration. It specifies the verb ('Rescan') and resource ('replicas'), but lacks detail about what 'rescan' entails or which replicas are targeted. Compared to siblings like 'RescanAllManagedServers' or 'RescanProtectionGroup', it doesn't differentiate scope or context, making it vague.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools include various rescan operations (e.g., 'RescanAllManagedServers', 'RescanProtectionGroup'), but the description doesn't specify if this tool is for all replicas globally, after changes, or in specific scenarios. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or named alternatives mentioned.

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