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 on success/failure, if changes are reversible, or any side effects (e.g., affecting connected systems). 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 ('Edit'), making it immediately understandable, though its brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions.

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 operation with nested object parameters), lack of annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'edit' entails, parameter meanings, behavioral traits, or expected outcomes, leaving the agent poorly equipped to use this tool correctly.

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 documentation. The description adds no information about the 'id' (e.g., what identifies the data source) or 'body' (e.g., what fields can be edited, format constraints). With two required parameters and no guidance in the description, it fails to compensate for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 an unstructured data source' clearly states the action (edit) and target (unstructured data source), which is better than a tautology. However, it's vague about what 'edit' entails (e.g., modifying configuration, updating metadata) and doesn't distinguish it from sibling tools like 'UpdateUnstructuredDataShareIRSwitchoverSettings' or 'DeleteUnstructuredDataServers', leaving ambiguity about its specific scope.

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 unstructured data server), exclusions (e.g., not for creating or deleting), or refer to sibling tools like 'CreateUnstructuredDataServer' or 'DeleteUnstructuredDataServers', leaving the agent to infer usage context from the name alone.

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