Veeam VBR v13 MCP Server

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states the action without disclosing behavioral traits like whether it's destructive (likely yes, as it stops a session), permission requirements, side effects (e.g., data loss, cleanup), or error handling. It adds minimal context beyond the basic action.

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, front-loading the core action. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool, though brevity limits informational value.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a parameter with 0% schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavior, parameters, return values, and context, making it inadequate for a tool that likely performs a destructive operation on a session.

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 with 0% description coverage, but the description does not add any semantic details about 'sessionId' (e.g., format, source, or constraints). Since there's only one parameter and the schema lacks descriptions, the baseline is 3, but the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 'Unmount Microsoft Entra ID audit log restore session' clearly states the action (unmount) and resource (audit log restore session), but lacks specificity about what 'unmount' entails (e.g., terminating access, cleaning up resources) and how it differs from similar tools like 'StopEntraIDTenantRestore' or 'StopFlrMount'. It's not tautological but remains somewhat vague.

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 explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'StopEntraIDTenantRestore' or 'StopFlrMount'), prerequisites (e.g., requires an active session), or post-conditions. The description implies usage after a mount operation but offers no concrete context or exclusions.

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