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 only states 'Edit', implying a mutation without details on permissions, side effects, or response behavior. It lacks critical information such as whether this is a partial/full update, if changes are reversible, or any rate limits, making it insufficient for safe invocation.

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. It efficiently conveys the core action without unnecessary elaboration, though this brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions.

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 nested objects), lack of annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral risks, parameter meanings, or expected outcomes, failing to provide enough context for reliable agent 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%, so the schema provides no parameter details. The description adds no meaning beyond the tool name, failing to explain what 'id' and 'body' represent (e.g., tenant identifier and update payload). This leaves both parameters undocumented and unclear in usage.

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 Microsoft Entra ID tenant' clearly states the action (edit) and resource (tenant), but it's vague about what specific aspects are editable. It doesn't differentiate from its sibling 'CreateEntraIDTenants' or 'DeleteEntraIDTenants' beyond the basic verb, lacking specificity about scope or fields.

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 'CreateEntraIDTenants' or 'DeleteEntraIDTenants'. The description implies usage for editing existing tenants but doesn't specify prerequisites, constraints, or typical scenarios, leaving the agent without contextual direction.

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