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. It states 'Edit/update' which implies a mutation, but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits: whether it requires specific permissions, if changes are reversible, what happens to unspecified fields, error conditions, or side effects. 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 zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place.

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 complexity (a mutation tool with nested objects), lack of annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what a 'job configuration' entails, the structure of the 'body' object, possible outcomes, or error handling. For a tool that modifies existing resources, this leaves too much undefined.

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 descriptions. The tool description doesn't mention any parameters, leaving both 'id' and 'body' completely undocumented. However, with only 2 parameters, the baseline is higher; the description implies an 'id' for an existing job and a 'body' for configuration, but adds no specifics on format, constraints, or examples.

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/update') and resource ('an existing job configuration'), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes from obvious siblings like 'CreateJob' and 'DeleteJob' by specifying it's for existing jobs, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other update tools like 'UpdateProtectionGroup' or 'UpdateProxy' beyond the resource type.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a job ID), exclusions, or compare it to similar tools like 'CloneJob' or 'DisableJob'. The agent must infer usage from the name and context alone.

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