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. 'Edit' implies a mutation/write operation, but the description doesn't disclose any behavioral traits: it doesn't mention permissions required, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loaded with the core action, though it lacks detail that might be needed 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 (mutation with 1 nested object parameter), lack of annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what can be edited, how to structure the input, what the tool returns, or any behavioral context, making it inadequate for effective 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?

The input schema has 1 parameter ('body') with 0% schema description coverage, meaning the schema provides no documentation about what 'body' should contain. The description adds no parameter semantics—it doesn't explain what fields or structure 'body' should have for editing email settings. This fails to compensate for the poor schema coverage.

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 email notification settings' clearly states the action (edit) and target resource (email notification settings), which is better than a tautology. However, it's somewhat vague about what specific settings can be edited and doesn't distinguish this tool from potential siblings like 'UpdateNotificationsSettings' or 'GetEmailSettings' that appear in the sibling list.

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. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing existing settings to edit), when not to use it, or how it differs from similar tools like 'UpdateNotificationsSettings' or 'GetEmailSettings' in the sibling list.

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