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 performs an 'unmount' operation (implying mutation/destruction), but doesn't clarify permissions needed, whether the action is reversible, side effects, or error conditions. 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 with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it immediately understandable despite its brevity.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and incomplete parameter documentation, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'unmount' entails operationally, what happens to the session/data, or what the tool returns. Given the complexity implied by sibling tools, more context is needed.

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 explicitly mention parameters, but with only 1 parameter (sessionId) and 0% schema description coverage, it implies the parameter through context ('a file restore session'). This provides marginal semantic value beyond the bare schema. The baseline for 0 parameters would be 4, but here we have 1 undocumented parameter, so 4 reflects reasonable compensation.

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 resource ('a file restore session'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'AzureInstantVMRecoveryUnmount' or 'InstantUnstructuredDataRecoveryUnmount', which perform similar unmount operations on different resource types.

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 contextual constraints. It doesn't reference sibling tools like 'StartFlrMount' (which likely creates the session) or other unmount tools, leaving the agent to infer usage from naming alone.

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