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 enabling/disabling, implying a mutation operation, but doesn't specify whether this requires specific permissions, if changes are reversible, potential side effects (e.g., impact on system functionality), or rate limits. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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 directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to grasp quickly.

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 complexity of a mutation tool with no annotations, 1 parameter at 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on parameters, behavioral traits, usage context, and expected outcomes, making it inadequate for safe and effective 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 input schema has 1 parameter ('body') with 0% description coverage and no details on its structure. The description adds no information about what 'body' should contain (e.g., a boolean flag, configuration object) or how to format it. With low schema coverage, the description fails to compensate, leaving parameters undocumented.

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 as enabling or disabling automatic license auto-update, which is a clear verb+action. However, it's somewhat vague about what 'license auto-update' specifically refers to (e.g., software licenses, subscription renewals) and doesn't distinguish it from sibling tools like 'InstallLicense' or 'UpdateLicense', which might handle related license operations.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., requiring admin permissions), when it should be applied (e.g., during maintenance windows), or what the alternatives are among sibling tools like 'InstallLicense' or 'UpdateLicense' for license management.

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