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. It states a revocation action, implying a destructive mutation, but does not specify permissions required, whether the action is reversible, rate limits, or what happens to the workload after revocation. This is a significant gap 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 a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words, clearly front-loading the core action. It is appropriately sized for the tool's apparent simplicity.

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 destructive nature (implied by 'Revoke'), lack of annotations, no output schema, and incomplete parameter documentation, the description is inadequate. It fails to address critical aspects like behavioral effects, error conditions, or return values, leaving the agent with insufficient context 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 description does not mention the 'instanceId' parameter, and schema description coverage is 0%, leaving the parameter undocumented. However, with only one parameter, the baseline is higher; the description implies the tool operates on a workload but does not add meaningful details about parameter format or constraints beyond what the schema minimally provides.

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 ('Revoke') and target ('a capacity license from an unstructured data workload'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'RemoveInstanceLicense' or 'RevokeInstanceLicense', which appear to handle similar license operations but for different contexts.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites, or exclusions. With sibling tools like 'RemoveInstanceLicense' and 'RevokeInstanceLicense' present, the lack of differentiation leaves the agent without context for selecting the correct tool.

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