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. While 'Stop' implies a mutation that terminates something, the description doesn't specify whether this action is reversible, requires specific permissions, has side effects (e.g., data loss), or what happens upon success/failure. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded and directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary elaboration, 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 (a mutation operation with no annotations, no output schema, and a parameter with 0% schema coverage), the description is inadequate. It lacks details on behavior, parameters, usage context, and expected outcomes, leaving critical gaps for an agent to invoke it correctly in a real-world scenario.

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 one parameter ('id') with 0% description coverage, meaning the schema provides no semantic context. The description doesn't mention parameters at all, failing to compensate for the coverage gap. However, since there's only one parameter, the baseline is slightly higher, but the description adds no value beyond what's inferred from the tool name.

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 ('Stop') and the target resource ('a running automation session'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from other 'stop' tools in the sibling list like StopJob, StopSession, StopEntraIDAuditLogMount, etc., which would require more specificity about what makes an 'automation session' distinct.

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., needing an active session ID), exclusions, or how it differs from other stop-related tools in the sibling list, such as StopJob or StopSession. This leaves the agent without context for proper tool selection.

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