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 but offers minimal behavioral insight. It states what the tool does (scanning) but doesn't disclose whether this is a read-only operation, if it modifies data, what permissions are required, how long scans take, or what happens to scan results. For a security scanning tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves critical behavioral traits undocumented.

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 gets straight to the point without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for what it communicates, though the communication itself is incomplete. The structure is front-loaded with the core action.

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 malware scanning operation, no annotations, no output schema, and a parameter schema with 0% coverage, the description is severely inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how to interpret results, what happens during execution, or how to configure the scan. For a security tool that likely produces important findings, this leaves too many contextual gaps.

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 schema documentation. The description provides no information about what parameters are needed, what the 'body' object should contain, or how to specify scanning targets, antivirus settings, or YARA rules. With low schema coverage and no parameter guidance in the description, users cannot understand how to invoke this tool correctly.

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 'Scan backup data with antivirus software or YARA rules' clearly states the action (scan) and target (backup data) with specific scanning methods mentioned. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from potential siblings like 'StartSecurityAnalyzer' or 'GetYaraRules' that might involve similar scanning functionality, leaving the specific scope ambiguous.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description mentions scanning methods but doesn't indicate prerequisites, timing considerations, or how this differs from other security-related tools in the sibling list like 'StartSecurityAnalyzer' or 'MarkBackupObjectsAsClean'.

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