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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool performs a 'clear' operation, implying mutation/destruction of cache data, but doesn't specify whether this is reversible, requires specific permissions, affects system performance, or has rate limits. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate behavioral context.

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 unnecessary words. It's appropriately front-loaded with the core action and target, making it easy to parse quickly. There's no redundant information or structural issues.

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's complexity (a mutation operation on backup systems), lack of annotations, no output schema, and incomplete parameter documentation, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'clear' entails operationally, what the 'backup cache' contains, potential side effects, or success/failure indicators. For a tool in a backup management context, this leaves critical gaps.

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 description doesn't mention any parameters, while the schema has one required parameter ('id') with 0% description coverage. The description implies the tool operates on an agent backup policy cache, which contextually suggests 'id' refers to a policy identifier, but this isn't explicitly stated. With low schema coverage, the description adds minimal value beyond basic inference.

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 ('Clear') and the target ('backup cache for an agent backup policy'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes from siblings like 'DeleteBackup' or 'DeleteBackupObject' by focusing on cache clearance rather than deletion of primary data. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from tools like 'RescanProtectionGroup' or 'UpdateAgentPolicyConfiguration' that might involve cache-related 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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., whether the agent policy must be active), consequences (e.g., performance impact during cache clearance), or when not to use it (e.g., during backup operations). With many sibling tools for backup management, this lack of contextual guidance is a significant gap.

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