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. It mentions 'start a quick backup', which implies a write operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether it's asynchronous, potential impacts on VMs, or error handling. The description lacks critical details for a mutation tool, making it insufficient for safe use.

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 front-loads the key action and constraint. It avoids unnecessary words and gets straight to the point, though it could be more informative. The structure is clear, but brevity comes at the cost of completeness.

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 (a mutation with 1 nested parameter), lack of annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what a 'quick backup' is, what the input requires, or what the output might be. For a tool that likely modifies system state, more context is needed to ensure correct usage.

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 in the schema. The description adds no information about parameters—it doesn't explain what the 'body' should contain (e.g., VM identifiers, backup settings). With low schema coverage and no compensation in the description, this leaves parameters completely 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 action ('Start a quick backup') and target resource ('VMware vSphere VMs'), which clarifies the purpose. However, it's vague about what 'quick backup' entails and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'StartJob' or 'CreateJob', which might also initiate backups. It avoids tautology by specifying the resource type.

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 minimal guidance by noting this is 'without creating a full job', implying a distinction from job-based backups. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'StartJob' or under what conditions (e.g., ad-hoc vs. scheduled). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving usage context unclear.

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