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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Edit' implies a mutation operation, but the description doesn't specify whether this requires admin permissions, what the default settings are, whether changes are reversible, or if there are rate limits. It mentions no behavioral traits beyond the basic edit action, which is insufficient for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 extremely concise with a single sentence 'Edit notification settings.' It is front-loaded and wastes no words, though this brevity contributes to its lack of detail. Every word serves a purpose, even if that purpose is minimal.

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 mutation nature, lack of annotations, 0% schema description coverage, no output schema, and presence of sibling tools with overlapping functionality, the description is incomplete. It doesn't provide enough context for an agent to understand what to edit, how to structure inputs, or what to expect, making it inadequate for safe and 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% description coverage and no details about its structure. The description adds no information about what properties 'body' should contain, what notification settings are editable, or examples of valid inputs. With low schema coverage, the description fails to compensate, leaving parameters largely 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 'Edit notification settings' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'UpdateNotificationsSettings'. It provides a generic verb ('Edit') and resource ('notification settings'), but lacks specificity about what aspects can be edited or how this differs from sibling tools like 'UpdateEmailSettings' or 'UpdateEventForwardingSettings' that also manage notification-related configurations.

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 are multiple sibling tools that handle notification-related updates (e.g., 'UpdateEmailSettings', 'UpdateEventForwardingSettings'), but the description doesn't clarify the scope, prerequisites, or distinctions between them, leaving the agent with no usage context.

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