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 starting a session and mounting a backup, implying a potentially stateful or resource-intensive operation, but fails to detail critical aspects like required permissions, whether it's destructive, session management, rate limits, or expected outcomes. This leaves significant gaps for an AI agent to understand 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, clear sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and wastes no space, making it easy to parse 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 tool's complexity (involving session management and backup mounting), lack of annotations, no output schema, and minimal parameter documentation, the description is incomplete. It fails to address key contextual elements like what the tool returns, error conditions, or how it interacts with sibling tools (e.g., 'StopFlrMount'), leaving the AI agent with insufficient information for 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 input schema has 1 parameter ('body') with 0% description coverage and no details on its structure or purpose. The description adds no information about parameters, such as what the 'body' object should contain (e.g., backup ID, mount options) or how to format it. With low schema coverage and no compensation in the description, parameter understanding is severely lacking.

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 ('Start a file restore session') and the resource/operation ('mount backup for file-level restore'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'StartUnstructuredDataFlrMount' or 'StopFlrMount', which appear to handle similar or related 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, prerequisites, or exclusions. While it implies usage for file-level restore operations, it lacks explicit context such as when to choose this over other restore methods (e.g., entire VM restore) or what conditions must be met before invocation.

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