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 'Revoke' implies a destructive mutation, the description doesn't specify whether this action is reversible, what permissions are required, whether it affects system functionality, or what happens to the host after revocation. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in behavioral context.

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 that states the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool with one parameter, and the information is front-loaded with the essential action and target.

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 minimal parameter documentation, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain the consequences of revocation, success/failure responses, error conditions, or system impact. Given the complexity of license management and the presence of similar sibling tools, more context is needed for effective tool selection and 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 description mentions 'from a specific host' which aligns with the single 'hostId' parameter, but with 0% schema description coverage, the schema provides no documentation about this parameter. The description adds minimal semantic context (it's a host identifier) but doesn't specify format, validation rules, or where to obtain this ID. Baseline 3 is appropriate since there's only one parameter and the description provides basic mapping.

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 resource ('a socket license from a specific host'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'RevokeCapacityLicense' or 'RevokeInstanceLicense' that also revoke licenses, leaving some ambiguity about when to use this specific revocation tool.

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 'RevokeInstanceLicense'. It mentions the target ('from a specific host') but doesn't specify prerequisites, conditions, or exclusions for using this revocation operation.

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