Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
mcp-zabbix

mcp-zabbix

by daedalus
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

zabbix_iconmap_exists

Check if a specific icon map exists in your Zabbix system, providing a boolean result for validation.

Instructions

Zabbix API iconmap.exists method

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_iconmap_exists"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
paramsNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

D1.5/5.0
Behavior1/5

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

No annotations are present, and the description fails to disclose any behavioral traits such as read-only nature, side effects, authentication requirements, or rate limits. The agent receives no insight beyond the tool's name.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

While the description is short, it is under-specified rather than concise. Every sentence should add value, but this description merely rephrases the tool name and contributes no actionable information.

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

Completeness1/5

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

Given the vague parameter and lack of annotations, the description is extremely incomplete. It does not clarify the return value (despite an output schema existing), error conditions, or any operational context needed for correct invocation.

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

Parameters1/5

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

The input schema contains a single vague 'params' parameter (any object or null) with 0% schema description coverage. The description does not explain how to structure this parameter, what keys it expects, or its purpose, leaving the agent with no meaningful guidance.

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

Purpose2/5

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

The description 'Zabbix API iconmap.exists method' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name without adding specific verb or resource clarification. It does not explain that the tool checks for the existence of an icon map, leaving the agent to infer purpose from the name alone.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus siblings like zabbix_iconmap_get or zabbix_iconmap_create. The description lacks any context about appropriate use cases, prerequisites, or alternatives.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools