Veeam VBR v13 MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior but only states the action without details. It doesn't clarify if this is a read/write operation, its side effects (e.g., resource consumption, time to complete), authentication needs, or error handling. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand operational risks and outcomes.

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, making it highly concise and front-loaded. However, this brevity comes at the cost of completeness, as it omits necessary details for effective tool use.

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 implied by 'restore' (likely a mutation with side effects), no annotations, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and a nested parameter, the description is inadequate. It doesn't cover behavior, parameters, or expected outcomes, making it insufficient for safe and correct tool invocation 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 1 parameter ('body') with 0% description coverage, and the tool description adds no parameter information. It doesn't explain what 'body' should contain (e.g., configuration for the restore, target details), failing to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation and leaving parameters semantically undefined.

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 'Start Microsoft Entra ID audit log restore' clearly states the action (start) and resource (Microsoft Entra ID audit log restore), but it's vague about what 'restore' entails—whether it initiates a recovery process, mounts logs for access, or something else. It doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'StopEntraIDAuditLogMount' or 'StartEntraIDTenantRestore', leaving ambiguity in scope.

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. The description lacks context about prerequisites, such as needing an audit log backup or specific permissions, and doesn't mention related tools like 'StopEntraIDAuditLogMount' for stopping the process or 'StartEntraIDTenantRestore' for broader restores.

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