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. While 'Retry' implies a mutation operation, it doesn't specify whether this requires special permissions, what happens to the original failed job, whether retry attempts are limited, or what the expected outcome looks like. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 - a single four-word sentence that directly states the tool's purpose with zero wasted words. It's perfectly front-loaded and appropriately sized for such a straightforward operation.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a parameter with 0% schema description coverage, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what constitutes a 'failed job', what the retry process entails, what permissions are required, or what the response contains. The agent lacks critical context for proper tool invocation.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, but the description doesn't add any parameter information beyond what's implied by the tool name. The single parameter 'id' is undocumented in both schema and description. However, with only one parameter, the baseline is higher than for multi-parameter tools, though the description doesn't compensate for the coverage gap.

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 ('Retry') and target resource ('a failed job'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from potential sibling operations like 'StartJob' or 'CloneJob' that might also initiate job execution, which prevents a perfect score.

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 'StartJob' or 'CloneJob' for similar purposes. It doesn't specify prerequisites (e.g., only works on jobs in a failed state) or mention any exclusions, leaving the agent with insufficient context for proper tool selection.

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