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 specific permissions, what happens if the ID is invalid, whether changes are reversible, or any rate limits 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 no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Edit') and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place by conveying the essential purpose without redundancy.

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 (mutation tool with nested objects), lack of annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what can be edited, the expected input format, potential outcomes, or error conditions. For a tool that modifies a critical resource like a backup repository, more context is needed to ensure 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 schema provides no parameter details. The description adds no information about the parameters 'id' (e.g., what it represents, format) or 'body' (e.g., what fields can be edited, expected structure). With two required parameters and no schema descriptions, the description fails to compensate, leaving parameters 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 a Scale-Out Backup Repository' clearly states the verb ('Edit') and resource ('Scale-Out Backup Repository'), making the purpose understandable. However, it's somewhat vague about what 'Edit' entails compared to more specific verbs like 'Update settings' or 'Modify configuration', and it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'UpdateRepository' or 'CreateScaleOutRepository' in terms of scope or function.

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 an existing repository ID), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'UpdateRepository' (for non-scale-out repositories) or 'CreateScaleOutRepository'. This lack of context leaves the agent to infer usage based on the tool name alone.

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