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 states this is a 'permanent failover' operation, implying a destructive, irreversible action, but doesn't disclose what 'permanent' entails, what gets affected, permission requirements, or any side effects. For a critical operation with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate behavioral disclosure.

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 that directly states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the essential information.

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 potentially destructive operation with no annotations, no output schema, and a complex nested parameter structure (0% schema coverage), the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'permanent failover' means operationally, what data is required, or what to expect as a result. The context demands more comprehensive guidance.

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 one required parameter ('body') that's a generic object. The description provides absolutely no information about what parameters are needed, what the 'body' should contain, or any parameter semantics. This fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation.

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 permanent failover') and the target resource ('VMware vSphere snapshot replica'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'ViVMSnapshotReplicaFailover' 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. With multiple sibling tools containing 'failover' in their names, the lack of differentiation is a significant gap. No explicit when/when-not statements or named alternatives are provided.

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