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 but fails to disclose behavioral traits. 'Edit' implies a mutation, but it doesn't specify required permissions, whether changes are destructive or reversible, rate limits, or expected response format. This leaves critical operational context undefined.

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. However, it is under-specified rather than concise—it lacks necessary detail for a mutation tool with complex parameters, which reduces its effectiveness despite the 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, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and a nested object parameter, the description is completely inadequate. It fails to explain what configuration backup settings are, how to structure the 'body' parameter, what the tool returns, or any side effects, making it insufficient for safe and correct use.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no parameter information. The single parameter 'body' is an open-ended object with no guidance on expected properties or structure. The description does not compensate for the schema's lack of detail, leaving parameters entirely undocumented.

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 configuration backup settings' restates the tool name 'UpdateConfigBackupOptions' with minimal elaboration, making it tautological. It specifies the verb 'Edit' and resource 'configuration backup settings', but lacks detail on what aspects are editable or how it differs from siblings like 'StartConfigBackup' or 'GetConfigBackupOptions'.

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. Sibling tools include 'GetConfigBackupOptions' (likely for reading settings) and 'StartConfigBackup' (likely for initiating backups), but the description offers no comparison, prerequisites, or context for selection.

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