Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Zabbix MCP Server

Zabbix MCP Server

by initMAX
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

infrastructure_summary_get

Read-only

Get a single-call Zabbix dashboard summary with host, item, trigger, and template counts, active-problem severity, and top problematic hosts to quickly assess overall infrastructure health.

Instructions

Whole-Zabbix dashboard summary: host / item / trigger / template counts + active-problem severity breakdown + top-N most-problematic hosts, in a single call.

Use this for 'show me the overall status' / 'is everything OK?' / 'how many problems do we have right now?' style first-look prompts. Replaces five separate count + filter calls and the LLM correlation step that local models often get wrong.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
top_nNoNumber of top-problematic hosts to include (default 5).
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": "_infrastructure_summary_getOutput",
-  "type": "object"
-}New value: +null
  2. First observedv1.41.0

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
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 genuine behavioral context beyond that: it is a single-call aggregation that performs server-side correlation the model would otherwise have to do, and it enumerates the response contents despite no output schema. It does not mention the disclaimer preamble or the allow_raw_json policy, though those are documented in 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?

Two tight paragraphs, both front-loaded: capability first, then the prompt types that should trigger it. No filler or redundant restatement of the name.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly compensates by listing the fields the summary contains. It does not describe the envelope or format of the result or whether it is truncated/paginated, but for a read-only aggregate this is largely sufficient.

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%, so all three parameters (top_n, server, raw_json) are already documented, including the detailed raw_json security warning. The description's mention of 'top-N most-problematic hosts' merely echoes the schema and adds no syntax, range, or constraint detail.

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?

The description names a specific aggregation ('host / item / trigger / template counts + active-problem severity breakdown + top-N most-problematic hosts') rather than a vague summary, so an agent knows exactly what this returns. It is clearly distinguishable from sibling detail tools like problem_get, host_get, and dashboard_get.

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?

Explicit usage context is given via quoted example prompts ('show me the overall status', 'is everything OK?') and the framing as a 'first-look' tool. It also states the alternative it replaces ('five separate count + filter calls'), but does not explicitly say when to move on to drill-down tools such as problem_get or host_status_get.

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