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 must fully disclose behavioral traits, but it does not. It mentions 'switch over to production' which implies a mutation or state change, but fails to describe critical aspects like whether this is destructive, requires specific permissions, has side effects, or involves rate limits. The description is too brief to offer any meaningful behavioral context, leaving the agent uninformed about risks or operational impacts.

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 concise with a single sentence, but it is under-specified rather than efficiently informative. While it avoids unnecessary verbosity, it lacks essential details that would make it helpful, such as the target resource or operational context. The structure is simple but does not front-load critical information, resulting in a description that is brief yet insufficient.

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 snapshot replicas and production switching), the description is severely incomplete. With no annotations, no output schema, and minimal parameter guidance, it fails to provide necessary context for safe and correct use. The description does not compensate for these gaps, leaving the agent without information on what the tool does, how to use it, or what to expect in return.

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 ('body') with 0% description coverage and no details on its structure or purpose. The description adds no information about parameters, such as what the 'body' should contain (e.g., identifiers, configuration options) or how to format it. Given the low schema coverage and lack of compensatory details in the description, it fails to clarify parameter semantics, making invocation challenging.

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 'Switch over to production after failback' is vague and tautological, as it essentially restates the tool name 'ViVMSnapshotReplicaSwitchToProduction' without specifying what resource or system it acts upon. It mentions 'production' and 'failback' but lacks concrete details like whether this applies to virtual machines, snapshots, or specific infrastructure components, making it unclear compared to siblings like 'ViVMSnapshotReplicaFailback' or 'ViVMSnapshotReplicaUndoFailback'.

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. It does not specify prerequisites (e.g., after a failback operation), exclusions, or contextual triggers, leaving the agent with no information on appropriate usage scenarios. Without such details, it fails to help distinguish it from related tools in the sibling list, such as 'ViVMSnapshotReplicaFailover' or 'AzureInstantVMRecoverySwitchover'.

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