Monitoring AIops

zabbix_problems

Read-only

Retrieve current Zabbix problems and filter by minimum severity to identify active alerts for a chosen target.

Instructions

[READ] Current Zabbix problems (active alerts) with mapped severity levels.

Args: min_severity: Only problems at this Zabbix severity (0-5) or above. target: Zabbix target name from config; omit for the default.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "zabbix_problems"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`target`	No
`min_severity`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.9.0Sep 5, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the '[READ]' prefix largely repeats that rather than extending it. It adds the notion of 'current' problems and 'mapped severity levels,' hinting at the return shape, but discloses nothing about pagination, ack state, or result size.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Purpose is front-loaded in a single clear sentence, followed by a compact Args block. No filler, though the man-page style args list is slightly redundant with the schema's presence.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

There is no output schema, so the description should clarify what is returned; it gestures at problems with severity levels but does not describe fields, ordering, or volume. Adequate for a simple read, but leaves a gap an agent must discover.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the load, and it does explain both params: min_severity as 'this Zabbix severity (0-5) or above' and target as a config name with 'omit for default' semantics. It compensates well, though it does not map the 0-5 values to severity names it references.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb+resource: fetching current Zabbix problems (active alerts) with severity mapping. Clear what it does, but it does not differentiate from the sibling active_alerts or zabbix_events, which sound equally applicable to an agent choosing a tool.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives named. The agent cannot infer from the text alone whether this supersedes active_alerts or zabbix_events, or when min_severity should be raised.

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