Checks the MCP server and reports the connectivity status of each configured Zabbix server, helping diagnose connection issues.
Check the health of the MCP server and its connections to Zabbix servers. Returns the connectivity status of each configured Zabbix server.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.42.2Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falseOutput schema / (root)Previous value: -{
- "properties": {
- "result": {
- "title": "Result",
- "type": "string"
- }
- },
- "required": [
- "result"
- ],
- "title": "health_checkOutput",
- "type": "object"
-}New value: +nullv1.41.0Does 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 a small amount of value by disclosing that the response contains per-server connectivity status, but says nothing about failure behavior (does it error on an unreachable server or report it inline?) or about latency/timeouts.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and followed by the return content. Every clause earns its place with no filler or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter, read-only diagnostic tool with no output schema, this is sufficient: it says what is checked, against what, and what the agent gets back. The openWorldHint=false annotation closes the remaining ambiguity about external reach.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to document and the baseline of 4 applies. Nothing in the description misrepresents the input surface.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb and resource: checks the health of the MCP server and its Zabbix connections, then returns connectivity status. That is clearly distinguishable from the data-retrieval siblings (host_get, problem_get, etc.), though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from adjacent introspection tools like serverinfo_get or apiinfo_version.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is only implied – an agent can infer this is the tool to call when verifying server connectivity or troubleshooting failures. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no guidance on when to prefer it over serverinfo_get/apiinfo_version, and no mention of prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.