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 mentions a mutation action ('Set'), implying changes to system state, but fails to describe critical behaviors such as permission requirements, whether the change is reversible, potential side effects (e.g., impact on ongoing operations), or error conditions. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's effects.

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, clear sentence that directly states the tool's action without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, making it efficient and easy to parse. There is no wasted verbiage, achieving optimal conciseness for the given information.

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 mutation nature (setting a default), lack of annotations, no output schema, and incomplete parameter documentation (0% schema coverage with no compensation in the description), the description is insufficient. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects, parameter details, or expected outcomes, making it incomplete for safe and effective use by an agent.

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 one parameter ('id') with 0% description coverage, meaning the schema provides no details about what 'id' represents. The description does not add any semantic information about this parameter—it doesn't explain what 'id' refers to (e.g., a mount server identifier), its format, or where to obtain it. This lack of compensation for the schema gap makes parameter understanding inadequate.

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 states the tool's purpose ('Set a specific mount server as the default'), which includes a verb ('Set') and resource ('mount server'). However, it's somewhat vague about what 'default' means in this context (e.g., default for what operations or contexts?), and it doesn't distinguish itself from sibling tools like 'GetDefaultMountServer' or 'SetupMountServer', which are related but serve different purposes.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't specify prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing mount server ID), when it's appropriate to change the default, or what happens after setting it. The description lacks any context about usage scenarios or exclusions, leaving the agent with no direction on application.

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