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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a 'planned failover' operation, which implies it's a controlled, non-destructive transition (unlike emergency failovers), but doesn't specify prerequisites, permissions required, whether it's reversible, what happens to the original replica, or any rate limits. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 states the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately front-loaded with the key action and resource.

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, no output schema, and a complex nested parameter structure (body object with undefined properties), the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, what the 'body' parameter should contain, or the operational implications of starting a planned failover. The context demands more comprehensive documentation.

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 and contains a single nested 'body' parameter with completely undefined properties. The description provides no information about what parameters are needed (e.g., replica ID, target host, confirmation flags) or their semantics. With such low schema coverage, the description fails to compensate at all.

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 planned failover') and the target resource ('VMware vSphere snapshot replica'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'ViVMSnapshotReplicaFailover' or 'ViVMSnapshotReplicaPermanentFailover', 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. There are multiple sibling tools with similar names (e.g., ViVMSnapshotReplicaFailover, ViVMSnapshotReplicaPermanentFailover) that likely represent different failover scenarios, but the description doesn't explain when 'planned failover' is appropriate versus other types.

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