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. 'Edit' implies a mutation operation, but the description doesn't specify required permissions, whether changes are reversible, potential side effects (e.g., impact on connected systems), rate limits, or response format. For a tool that modifies credentials—a sensitive operation—this is a significant gap in transparency, though it doesn't contradict any annotations.

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 directly states the tool's function. It's appropriately front-loaded and avoids unnecessary elaboration, making it easy to parse quickly. This is an example of good conciseness, though it comes at the cost of detail.

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 complexity (a mutation tool for credentials), lack of annotations, no output schema, and low parameter coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address critical aspects like security implications, error conditions, or what a successful edit entails. For a sensitive operation like credential management, more context is needed to ensure safe and correct 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 2 parameters with 0% description coverage, meaning neither 'id' nor 'body' are documented in the schema. The description adds no information about these parameters—it doesn't explain what 'id' refers to (e.g., credential identifier) or what 'body' should contain (e.g., fields to update). This fails to compensate for the low schema coverage, 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 'Edit a cloud credentials record' clearly states the action (edit) and resource (cloud credentials record), which is better than a tautology. However, it's vague about what 'edit' entails compared to more specific verbs like 'update fields' or 'modify properties', and it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'ChangeCloudCredsSecretKey' or 'UpdateCreds', which might handle similar resources. This leaves the purpose somewhat ambiguous in context.

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. With siblings like 'ChangeCloudCredsSecretKey', 'UpdateCreds', and 'CreateCloudCreds', there's no indication of prerequisites, distinctions (e.g., this edits existing records while others create or modify specific aspects), or exclusions. This lack of context makes it hard for an agent to choose correctly among similar tools.

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