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 'Start failover' which implies a potentially destructive or disruptive operation, but doesn't clarify permissions needed, whether it's reversible, what happens to the original replica, or any side effects. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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, focused sentence with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for the tool's apparent complexity and gets straight to the point.

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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and a complex nested parameter, the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool actually does beyond the high-level concept, what inputs are required, what happens during execution, or what to expect as a result.

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 single parameter 'body' has an open-ended object structure with no documented properties. The description provides no information about what should be in the body parameter (e.g., replica ID, target settings, confirmation flags), leaving the parameter completely undocumented.

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 failover') and target resource ('VMware vSphere snapshot replica'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like ViVMSnapshotReplicaPermanentFailover or ViVMSnapshotReplicaPlannedFailover, which appear to be related failover operations.

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 for invocation. With multiple sibling failover tools (e.g., ViVMSnapshotReplicaPermanentFailover, ViVMSnapshotReplicaPlannedFailover), this omission is significant.

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