Retrieve hourly aggregated trend data for Zabbix monitoring items using item IDs. Specify time range and result limit to analyze historical metrics.
获取监控项趋势数据（每小时聚合）。摘要用trend_summary
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | 返回条数（默认24） | |
| itemids | Yes | 监控项ID（必填） | |
| time_from | No | 起始时间（支持相对时间如7d） | |
| time_till | No | 截止时间 |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait—data is hourly aggregated—and also routes summary requests to trend_summary. This is sufficient for a read-only trend fetch, though it does not mention pagination or retention behavior.
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 extremely concise: one sentence states the core action and a second sentence points to the summary alternative. Every word adds value and the key information is front-loaded.
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 four-parameter getter with a fully documented input schema and an output schema, the essential context is covered. It would be slightly better to explicitly mention when to use history_get instead, but the hourly aggregation note and trend_summary routing make the tool's role clear enough.
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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters and their meanings. The description adds no parameter-specific detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 tool's purpose: retrieve monitoring item trend data, specifically hourly aggregated data. It also differentiates itself by pointing to trend_summary for summary use, making the resource and scope unambiguous.
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?
It explicitly tells the agent to use trend_summary for summaries, providing a clear alternative. However, it does not explicitly contrast with history_get for raw, non-aggregated data, though the hourly aggregation hint makes the intended use fairly clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.