Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Zabbix MCP Server

Zabbix MCP Server

by initMAX
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

configuration_importcompare

Read-only

Compare Zabbix import data with existing configuration without applying changes. Returns a diff of what would be created, updated, or deleted for dry-run validation before import.

Instructions

Compare import data with existing Zabbix configuration without applying changes. Returns a diff showing what would be created, updated, or deleted. Useful for dry-run validation before an actual import.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
paramsYesComparison parameters. Same structure as configuration.import: 'format', 'source', and 'rules'.
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": "configuration_importcompareOutput",
-  "type": "object"
-}New value: +null
  2. First observedv1.41.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and the description reinforces the non-mutating behavior while adding new information the annotations cannot convey: the response is a diff of create/update/delete operations. With no output schema, that return-value disclosure is genuinely valuable. It stops short of covering the special bearer-token policy or the untrusted-data wrapping caveat that the schema raises.

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 compact sentences: what it does, what it returns, and when to use it. The non-mutating constraint is front-loaded and no sentence is redundant.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a read-only comparison tool with a nested params object, the definition covers purpose, output shape, and intended use, which compensates for the absent output schema. The nested params are handled by the schema's cross-reference to configuration.import, so nothing critical is missing, though a note on the size or format of the diff would complete it.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, with 'params' documented as sharing the structure of configuration.import ('format', 'source', 'rules'), plus explicit server and raw_json descriptions. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the phrase 'import data', so the schema carries the load and the baseline of 3 applies.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description uses a specific verb and resource ('Compare import data with existing Zabbix configuration') and immediately scopes it as non-mutating ('without applying changes'). It also states what the tool produces ('a diff showing what would be created, updated, or deleted'), so an agent can tell it apart from an apply/import tool. It does not explicitly name the sibling configuration_export or any import counterpart, which keeps it short of a 5.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It gives a concrete usage context: 'Useful for dry-run validation before an actual import,' which tells the agent when to reach for it. There is no explicit when-not statement or named alternative tool, so the routing guidance is clear but not exhaustive.

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