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 full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Undo failover' implies a reversal operation, the description doesn't specify whether this is destructive, requires specific permissions, has side effects, or what the expected outcome is. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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 sized for what it communicates, though the brevity contributes to the gaps in other dimensions.

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 description coverage, no output schema, and complex nested parameters, the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'undo failover' entails operationally, what parameters are required, what the tool returns, or how it differs from related sibling tools.

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 1 required parameter ('body') that contains nested objects with unspecified properties. The description provides no information about what parameters are needed, what the 'body' should contain, or any required fields. This leaves the agent with essentially no guidance on how to invoke the tool correctly.

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 ('Undo failover') and the target resource ('VMware vSphere snapshot replica'), providing specific verb+resource information. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like ViVMSnapshotReplicaFailback or ViVMSnapshotReplicaFailover, which would require more specific context about what 'undo' means in this context.

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 contextual constraints. Given the presence of related sibling tools (ViVMSnapshotReplicaFailback, ViVMSnapshotReplicaFailover, etc.), this represents a significant gap in helping the agent choose correctly between similar operations.

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