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 for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'unmounts' a session, implying a destructive operation that terminates an active restore session, but doesn't specify whether this is reversible, what permissions are required, whether data loss occurs, or what happens to associated resources. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 directly states the tool's purpose with zero wasted words. It's appropriately front-loaded and earns its place.

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?

For a destructive operation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and undocumented parameters, the description is insufficient. It should explain what 'unmounting' entails, potential side effects, prerequisites, and expected outcomes to be complete enough for safe agent 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 description doesn't mention the sessionId parameter at all, and with 0% schema description coverage, the parameter is undocumented in both schema and description. However, since there's only one required parameter and the tool name/description imply it identifies a session, the baseline of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't add value but doesn't worsen the situation either.

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 ('Unmount') and the target resource ('a Microsoft Entra ID tenant restore session'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'StopEntraIDAuditLogMount' or 'StopFlrMount' that also unmount different types of sessions.

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 context. It doesn't mention what constitutes a valid sessionId or when this operation is appropriate versus other stop/unmount operations in the sibling list.

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