Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Zabbix MCP Server

Zabbix MCP Server

by initMAX
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

apiinfo_version

Read-only

Retrieves the Zabbix API and frontend version to help choose version-specific tools and parameters for a configured server.

Instructions

Return the version of the Zabbix API, which is the version of the Zabbix frontend (e.g. '7.4.14'). Takes no parameters. Use it to pick version-specific tools and parameters; health_check reports the same version for every configured server at once.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
serverNoTarget Zabbix server. Available: default. Defaults to 'default' if omitted.
raw_jsonNoStrips the security disclaimer preamble from the response so it is pure JSON. Default: false. Requires the bearer token to have 'allow_raw_json' explicitly enabled by an operator in the admin portal - tokens without that policy receive a PolicyError instead. WARNING: setting true bypasses the prompt-injection mitigation marker that wraps untrusted Zabbix data (host names, item descriptions, problem text). LLM clients (Claude, GPT, Cursor, ...) should leave this false; only programmatic non-LLM consumers (Python scripts, n8n workflows that json.loads the result) should set true.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv1.42.2
    • addedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Added value: +false
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -{
-  "properties": {
-    "result": {
-      "title": "Result",
-      "type": "string"
-    }
-  },
-  "required": [
-    "result"
-  ],
-  "title": "apiinfo_versionOutput",
-  "type": "object"
-}New value: +null
  2. First observedv1.41.0

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds value by giving the return shape and by contrasting its per-server scope with health_check's aggregate scope. The phrase 'Takes no parameters' is a small misstatement given the schema's optional server/raw_json wrapper params, and the raw_json security behavior is left entirely to the schema.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Three short sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then the parameter note, then the sibling routing. No redundant restatement of the name or title.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a zero-argument read tool with a full output example and no output schema, the description covers purpose, return format, and alternative selection. The wrapper parameters are thoroughly documented in the schema itself, so nothing essential is missing.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so a baseline of 3 would apply if the description stayed silent. Instead it asserts 'Takes no parameters', which is inaccurate against a schema with two defined properties (server, raw_json) and could mislead an agent into not targeting a specific server; it adds no meaning to either parameter.

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

Purpose5/5

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

States a specific verb and resource ('Return the version of the Zabbix API') and disambiguates the resource by equating it with the frontend version and giving a concrete example ('7.4.14'). An agent can immediately tell this apart from the many *_get siblings.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Gives an explicit use case ('pick version-specific tools and parameters') and names the alternative, health_check, along with the exact condition that distinguishes it ('reports the same version for every configured server at once'). Nothing is left to inference.

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