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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a mutation ('Edit') but does not specify required permissions, whether changes are reversible, or any side effects like rate limits. This is a significant gap for a tool that modifies data without safety 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 that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to understand quickly.

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 2 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on parameters, behavioral traits, and expected outcomes, making it inadequate for safe and effective use by an AI agent.

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 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain the parameters 'id' or 'body'. It mentions editing a note but fails to clarify that 'id' identifies the exclusion and 'body' contains the note content, leaving semantics unclear and not compensating for the schema gap.

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 note for a global VM exclusion'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'CreateGlobalVMExclusion' or 'DeleteGlobalVMExclusion', which would require mentioning it modifies an existing exclusion's note rather than creating or deleting exclusions.

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, such as when to choose it over creating or deleting exclusions, or any prerequisites like needing an existing exclusion ID. It lacks explicit context or exclusions, leaving usage unclear.

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