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. While 'Stop' implies a mutation, it doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this requires specific permissions, if the stop is immediate or graceful, what happens to partial job results, or if the job can be resumed later. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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 no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Stop a currently running job'), 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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a parameter with 0% schema coverage, the description is inadequate. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects (e.g., side effects, permissions), parameter details, or usage context, leaving the agent with insufficient information to invoke it correctly.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, but the description doesn't add any parameter information beyond what's implied by the tool name. It doesn't explain what 'id' represents (e.g., job ID format, where to find it) or provide examples. With one parameter, the baseline is 4, but the lack of any parameter details in the description reduces it to 3.

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 verb ('Stop') and resource ('a currently running job'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'DisableJob' or 'DeleteJob', which might have similar-sounding functions but different effects.

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 like 'DisableJob' (which might prevent future runs) or 'DeleteJob' (which might remove it entirely). It also doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., the job must be running) or consequences (e.g., whether it can be restarted).

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