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 must fully disclose behavioral traits. It fails to do so: it does not indicate whether this is a read-only or destructive operation, what permissions are required, if there are side effects (e.g., affecting ongoing recoveries), rate limits, or error conditions. For a tool that updates settings—a potentially impactful mutation—this lack of transparency is critical.

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—a single sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and directly states the action. While this brevity contributes to clarity, it also reflects severe under-specification, but as per scoring rules, conciseness is about efficiency, not completeness.

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 parameters, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage), the description is grossly inadequate. It fails to explain what the tool does beyond the name, provides no behavioral context, and offers no parameter guidance. For a tool that likely modifies recovery-related settings, this omission could lead to misuse or errors.

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, with two required parameters ('mountId' and 'body') that are entirely undocumented in the schema. The description adds no information about what these parameters mean, their expected formats, or examples of valid values. For a tool with nested objects and no schema documentation, this leaves parameters completely opaque.

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 'Update file share switchover settings' restates the tool name with minimal elaboration. It provides a basic verb ('Update') and resource ('file share switchover settings'), but lacks specificity about what 'switchover settings' entail or how this differs from similar tools like 'UpdateAzureInstantVMRecoverySwitchoverSettings' or 'InstantUnstructuredDataShareSwitchover'. This is borderline tautological, as it essentially repeats the name without meaningful expansion.

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. It does not mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions. Given sibling tools like 'GetUnstructuredDataShareIRSwitchoverSettings' (likely for retrieval) and 'InstantUnstructuredDataShareSwitchover' (likely for execution), the absence of differentiation is a significant gap. Users are left without any indication of appropriate use cases.

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