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 full burden. 'Stop' implies a destructive action, but it doesn't disclose whether this requires specific permissions, if it's reversible, what happens to session data, or any side effects like cleanup. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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 waste. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, 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 incomplete parameter documentation, the description is insufficient. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like permissions, reversibility, or effects, leaving significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's impact.

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 'id' parameter at all. With 0% schema description coverage and 1 parameter, the description adds no value beyond the schema. However, since there's only one parameter, the baseline is 4, but the lack of any parameter context 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 'Stop a running session' clearly states the action (stop) and target resource (session). It distinguishes from siblings like StopJob, StopAutomationSession, and StopFlrMount by being generic to sessions, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from these specific session 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like StopJob, StopAutomationSession, and StopFlrMount, the description doesn't clarify whether this is a generic session stopper or specific to certain session types, leaving usage ambiguous.

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