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 the action is 'revoke', implying a destructive mutation, but doesn't specify if this requires special permissions, whether the revocation is reversible, what happens to the workload post-revocation, or any rate limits/constraints. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior and impact.

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, direct sentence with no wasted words, front-loading the core action and target. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool, making it easy to parse quickly 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 destructive nature (implied by 'revoke'), no annotations, no output schema, and low parameter coverage, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain the consequences of revocation, error conditions, or what the tool returns, leaving the agent with incomplete 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 mentions 'instance license' and 'workload', which loosely relates to the 'instanceId' parameter, but with 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter, it adds minimal semantic value beyond what the schema name implies. Since there's only one parameter, the baseline is higher, but the description doesn't elaborate on format, examples, or valid values for 'instanceId'.

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 'Revoke an instance license from a workload' clearly states the action (revoke) and target (instance license from a workload), but it's somewhat vague about what 'instance license' and 'workload' specifically mean in this context. It distinguishes from siblings like 'RevokeCapacityLicense' and 'RevokeSocketLicense' by focusing on 'instance', but doesn't fully clarify the scope or effect compared to similar 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 like 'RevokeCapacityLicense' or 'RevokeSocketLicense', nor does it mention prerequisites, dependencies, or typical scenarios. It lacks explicit when/when-not instructions or named alternatives, leaving usage context unclear.

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