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. It states the action is to 'Start failback,' implying a mutation or recovery operation, but fails to describe critical aspects like required permissions, whether it's reversible, what happens to the original replica, or any side effects. This leaves the agent with insufficient information about the tool's behavior.

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, clear sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and efficiently communicates the core action, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 implied by the tool name (involving VMware vSphere snapshot replica operations), the lack of annotations, 0% schema description coverage, no output schema, and a nested object parameter, the description is insufficient. It fails to address behavioral traits, parameter usage, or expected outcomes, making it incomplete for effective agent use.

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 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, and the tool description provides no information about parameters. The description does not mention the 'body' parameter or its expected content, leaving the agent with no guidance on how to structure the input, which is inadequate given the schema's lack of detail.

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 ('Start failback') and the target resource ('VMware vSphere snapshot replica'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling tools like ViVMSnapshotReplicaCommitFailback or ViVMSnapshotReplicaUndoFailback, which prevents a perfect score.

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, prerequisites, or context. Given the presence of related sibling tools (e.g., ViVMSnapshotReplicaCommitFailback, ViVMSnapshotReplicaUndoFailback), this lack of differentiation is a significant gap, leaving the agent without clear usage direction.

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