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 offers minimal behavioral insight. It implies a mutation operation ('Edit') but doesn't disclose permissions needed, whether the change is reversible, potential side effects, or error conditions. This is inadequate for a tool that modifies security-related data.

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, direct sentence with no wasted words, making it highly concise and front-loaded. Every word contributes to stating the core purpose efficiently.

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 (modifying encryption passwords), lack of annotations, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and nested parameters, the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't address security implications, input requirements, or expected outcomes, leaving critical gaps for 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate but fails to do so. It mentions 'hint' editing but doesn't explain what 'id' or 'body' parameters represent, their formats, or how 'body' relates to the hint. This leaves key input semantics 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 clearly states the action ('Edit') and target resource ('the hint of an encryption password'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'ChangeEncryptionPassword' or 'CreateEncryptionPassword', which would require explicit comparison to achieve a perfect score.

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 like 'ChangeEncryptionPassword' or 'CreateEncryptionPassword', nor are any prerequisites or contextual constraints mentioned. The description only states what the tool does, not when it should be applied.

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