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 it 'gets' events, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like pagination (via skip/limit parameters), filtering capabilities (stateFilter), authentication needs, rate limits, or what 'all' means in practice (e.g., time range). This is a significant gap for a tool with parameters.

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 with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to scan. Every word earns its place by specifying the type of events and their source.

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 tool has 3 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain parameter usage, return values, or behavioral context (e.g., pagination, filtering). For a tool with this complexity and lack of structured data, more detail is needed to be fully helpful.

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%, so the schema provides no parameter details. The description mentions 'all malware/ransomware events' but doesn't explain the three parameters (skip, limit, stateFilter) or their purposes (e.g., pagination, state filtering). It adds minimal value beyond the schema, failing to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('malware/ransomware events detected in backup data'), making the purpose specific and understandable. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like 'GetSuspiciousActivityEvent' (singular) or 'CreateSuspiciousActivityEvent', but the plural 'all events' implies a list operation versus single-item 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, context (e.g., after a scan), or compare it to siblings like 'GetSuspiciousActivityEvent' (singular) or 'StartMalwareBackupScan'. Usage is implied only by the action 'Get all events'.

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