Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
mcp-zabbix

mcp-zabbix

by daedalus
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

zabbix_template_exists

Verify existence of a Zabbix template using the template.exists API method. Returns boolean indicating availability.

Instructions

Zabbix API template.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_template_exists"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
paramsNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

D1.3/5.0
Behavior1/5

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

No annotations provided. The description fails to disclose whether the method is read-only, what it returns on existence/non-existence, or any other behavioral traits. The agent has no insight into side effects or authentication needs.

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

Conciseness1/5

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

Extremely concise but at the cost of under-specification. One short sentence provides no useful structure or prioritization of 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 complexity of Zabbix and many sibling tools, the description lacks essential details: return format, output schema (though exists), prerequisite conditions, and how it differs from template.get. Completely inadequate.

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?

Input schema has 0% description coverage for the 'params' object. The description adds no meaning about what the params object should contain (e.g., template name, ID, filter criteria). Agent cannot determine correct usage.

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?

Description is a tautology: 'Zabbix API template.exists method' restates the tool name. It does not clarify what the method checks (e.g., existence by name or ID) or distinguish it from related tools like zabbix_template_get.

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

Usage Guidelines1/5

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

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as zabbix_template_get or zabbix_template_create. No context on prerequisites or typical use case.

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