Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
mcp-zabbix

mcp-zabbix

by daedalus
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

zabbix_wizard_delete

Removes a Zabbix wizard configuration via the API. Clean up monitoring setups by deleting unneeded wizards.

Instructions

Zabbix API wizard.delete 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_wizard_delete"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
paramsNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

D1.9/5.0
Behavior1/5

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

With no annotations and only a terse description, there is no disclosure of behavioral traits such as idempotency, error handling, authentication requirements, or side effects. The simple verb 'delete' implies mutation but no further context is given.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is extremely concise (one sentence), but conciseness alone is not beneficial. It is not appropriately front-loaded with key information and does not earn its place given the lack of substance.

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 delete nature, many siblings, and existence of an output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain what a 'wizard' is, how to identify one for deletion, or what the output contains. The output schema is present but unused.

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 one parameter 'params' with no description and 0% schema description coverage. The description adds no meaning to this parameter, failing to specify what fields or values are expected (e.g., a wizard ID).

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

Purpose3/5

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

The description states it deletes a wizard using the Zabbix API wizard.delete method, which clearly indicates the verb and resource. However, it lacks detail about what a wizard is in this context, and the phrasing feels like a tautological reference to the API method name.

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_wizard_create, get, or update. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or conditions for deletion.

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