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 of behavioral disclosure. While 'Update' implies a mutation operation, the description doesn't specify whether this requires specific permissions, if changes are reversible, potential side effects (e.g., downtime during switchover), rate limits, or error handling. This leaves critical behavioral traits undocumented for a tool that likely modifies recovery settings.

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, making it appropriately concise. However, it's front-loaded with the core action but lacks any supporting details, which could be seen as under-specified rather than optimally structured for clarity.

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 the tool's complexity (involving Azure recovery operations with nested parameters), lack of annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects, parameter details, or expected outcomes, leaving significant gaps for a mutation tool in a critical recovery context. More information is needed to adequately guide 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 input schema has 0% description coverage, with two required parameters: 'mountId' (string) and 'body' (object with additionalProperties). The description adds no meaning beyond the schema—it doesn't explain what 'mountId' refers to (e.g., an existing recovery mount session) or what the 'body' object should contain (e.g., specific switchover settings like network configuration). Given the low schema coverage, the description fails to compensate, leaving parameters largely unexplained.

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 'Update settings for switchover to Azure' clearly states the verb ('Update') and resource ('settings for switchover to Azure'), which gives a basic understanding of the tool's function. However, it lacks specificity about what exactly these settings control (e.g., network, storage, failover parameters) and doesn't distinguish it from sibling tools like 'AzureInstantVMRecoverySwitchover' or 'UpdateUnstructuredDataShareIRSwitchoverSettings', making it 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., requiring an existing mount or switchover session), exclusions, or related tools like 'GetAzureInstantVMRecoverySwitchoverSettings' for retrieval. Without such context, users must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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