Veeam VBR v13 MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states it 'edits' roles, implying a mutation. It fails to disclose critical behaviors like required permissions, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or error handling, which are essential for safe invocation.

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, making it easy to parse. It front-loads the core action and target, though this 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 complexity (mutation tool with nested objects, no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage), the description is inadequate. It lacks details on behavior, parameters, and expected outcomes, failing to compensate for the missing structured information.

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%, and the description adds no parameter details. It doesn't explain what 'id' refers to (e.g., user ID, group ID) or the structure/constraints of the 'body' object, leaving both parameters semantically unclear beyond the schema's basic types.

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 clearly states the action ('Edit') and target ('roles assigned to a user or group'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from potential siblings like 'CreateUser' or 'DeleteUser', which also manage user-related configurations, leaving room for ambiguity in sibling context.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks context on prerequisites, such as needing an existing user or group, or comparisons to tools like 'CreateUser' or 'ViewAllUserRoles', leaving the agent without usage direction.

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