Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
mcp-zabbix

mcp-zabbix

by daedalus
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

zabbix_itemprototype_exists

Verify whether a Zabbix item prototype exists. Accepts optional parameters to filter by criteria.

Instructions

Zabbix API itemprototype.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_itemprototype_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 provided, and the description discloses nothing about behavior (e.g., whether it is a read-only check, return boolean, or requires specific parameters). This is a significant gap.

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?

The description is concise (one sentence) but severely under-specified. It fails to convey necessary information, thus not 'earning its place' as a useful description.

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 tool's complexity (Zabbix API method), lacking parameter details, output schema utilization, and behavioral context, the description is completely inadequate for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 has a single 'params' field (object or null) with no description. Schema description coverage is 0%. The description adds no meaning about what parameters to use (e.g., filter criteria) beyond the schema.

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 itemprototype.exists method' is essentially a tautology; it restates the tool name without clarifying what 'exists' checks (e.g., whether a specific item prototype exists). It does not differentiate from sibling 'exists' tools except by resource type.

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 alternatives like zabbix_itemprototype_get or zabbix_itemprototype_create. The description lacks context for decision-making.

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