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 state whether this requires specific permissions, what the impact is (e.g., performance changes, downtime), or what the response looks like. 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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse 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 complexity of a mutation tool with no annotations, a nested input schema with 0% coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'storage latency control settings' entail, how to structure the 'body' parameter, or what the tool returns. This leaves critical gaps for an agent to use the tool effectively.

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 includes a single nested object parameter 'body' with no defined properties. The description mentions 'settings' but provides no details on what specific settings can be edited, their formats, or valid values. With low schema coverage, the description fails to compensate adequately for the lack of parameter documentation.

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 storage latency control settings' provides a clear verb ('Edit') and resource ('storage latency control settings'), but it's somewhat vague about what specific settings are involved. It doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'UpdateDatastoreLatencySettings' or 'GetStorageLatencySettings' beyond the edit vs. get distinction.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are multiple sibling tools related to latency settings (e.g., 'UpdateDatastoreLatencySettings', 'GetStorageLatencySettings', 'DeleteDatastoreLatencySettings'), but the description doesn't clarify the context, prerequisites, or exclusions for this specific tool.

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