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 full burden. It mentions 'verify' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires specific permissions, potential rate limits, or what happens on failure (e.g., lockout). The description is minimal and lacks critical context for safe use.

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 and directly states the tool's purpose, making it easy to parse quickly, though it lacks depth.

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 (2 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover parameter meanings, behavioral aspects like safety or permissions, or expected outcomes. For a verification tool that likely interacts with security-sensitive data, this leaves significant gaps in understanding.

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 2 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the tool description adds no meaning beyond the schema. It doesn't explain what 'id' or 'body' represent (e.g., password identifier and content), leaving parameters undocumented. With low schema coverage, the description fails to compensate, resulting in unclear parameter usage.

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 'Verify that an encryption password is correct' states a clear verb ('verify') and resource ('encryption password'), but it's vague about what constitutes 'correct' (e.g., for a specific object, system-wide). It doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'ChangeEncryptionPassword' or 'CreateEncryptionPassword', which involve modification rather than verification.

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 explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies it's for validation, but it doesn't specify prerequisites (e.g., after creation, before changes) or contrast with sibling tools like 'GetEncryptionPassword' (which might retrieve details) or 'ChangeEncryptionPassword' (which modifies it).

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