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 carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Reset MFA' implies a write operation that likely requires administrative privileges, the description doesn't specify permission requirements, whether the reset is immediate or requires user confirmation, what happens to existing MFA methods, or what the response looks like. This leaves significant behavioral gaps for a security-sensitive 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 with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loads the core purpose immediately.

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 tool that performs a security-sensitive mutation (MFA reset) with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks critical details like required permissions, behavioral consequences (e.g., does it force re-enrollment?), and response format, which are essential 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, so the schema provides no semantic information. The description mentions 'for a specific user,' which implies the 'id' parameter identifies a user, adding some meaning beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't specify the ID format (e.g., username, email, UUID) or provide examples, leaving the parameter only partially clarified.

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 ('Reset MFA') and target ('for a specific user'), which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from potential siblings like 'DisableMfa' or 'EnableMfa' that might exist in other contexts, though none are listed in the provided sibling tools.

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, prerequisites, or exclusions. It simply states what the tool does without contextual usage information.

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