Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Zabbix MCP Server

Zabbix MCP Server

by initMAX
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

mfa_get

Read-only

Retrieve Zabbix multi-factor authentication methods, including TOTP and Duo, to audit available MFA options and their configuration.

Instructions

Retrieve multi-factor authentication methods configured in Zabbix. MFA methods define the second factor required at login: TOTP (time-based one-time password via apps like Google Authenticator) or Duo Universal Prompt. MFA methods are assigned to user groups to enforce per-group MFA requirements. Use this to audit which MFA methods are available and their configuration.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoMaximum number of results to return.
filterNoReturn only results whose properties exactly match the given values (a single value or a list of values per key). Example: {"status": 0} or {"status": [0, 1]}. Only these keys are accepted: mfaid, type. Text properties cannot be filtered; use 'search' for them.
mfaidsNoReturn only MFA methods with the given IDs.
outputNoProperties of the mfa object to return. Pass 'extend' for all, 'count' for the number of matches only, or a list of property names. Default when omitted: mfaid, name, type. Properties: api_hostname, clientid, code_length, hash_function, mfaid, name, type.
searchNoReturn results whose string properties contain the given pattern (case-insensitive; '*' is a wildcard when searchWildcardsEnabled is true). Example: {"name": "web"}. Only these keys are accepted: name.
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.
sortfieldNoSort by one or more of: name (a list for several; pair with 'sortorder'). No other property is sortable.
sortorderNoSort order: 'ASC' (ascending) or 'DESC' (descending).
countOutputNoReturn the count of matching results instead of the actual data.
searchByAnyNoIf true, return results matching ANY search field (OR). Default is ALL fields (AND).
extra_paramsNoOther native mfa.get parameters, merged into the request as-is. Sub-object selects (value 'extend', 'count' or a list of property names): selectUsrgrps. Any other key is refused here, because Zabbix would silently ignore it. For a parameter you are sure exists on your release but is not listed, use zabbix_raw_api_call.
searchWildcardsEnabledNoIf true, enable * and ? wildcards in search patterns.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed10 schema fields changedv1.42.2
    • addedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Added value: +false
    • changedInput schema / properties / extra_params / anyOf
      Previous value: -[
-  {
-    "additionalProperties": true,
-    "type": "object"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]New value: +[
+  {
+    "propertyNames": {
+      "enum": [
+        "excludeSearch",
+        "preservekeys",
+        "startSearch",
+        "selectUsrgrps"
+      ]
+    },
+    "type": "object"
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "null"
+  }
+]
    • changedInput schema / properties / filter / anyOf
      Previous value: -[
-  {
-    "additionalProperties": true,
-    "type": "object"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]New value: +[
+  {
+    "propertyNames": {
+      "enum": [
+        "mfaid",
+        "type"
+      ]
+    },
+    "type": "object"
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "null"
+  }
+]
    • changedInput schema / properties / output / anyOf
      Previous value: -[
-  {
-    "type": "string"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]New value: +[
+  {
+    "enum": [
+      "extend",
+      "count"
+    ],
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  {
+    "items": {
+      "enum": [
+        "api_hostname",
+        "clientid",
+        "code_length",
+        "hash_function",
+        "mfaid",
+        "name",
+        "type"
+      ],
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "minItems": 1,
+    "type": "array"
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "null"
+  }
+]
    • changedInput schema / properties / output / description
      Previous value: -"Properties of the mfa object to return. Pass 'extend' for all, 'count' for the number of matches only, or a comma-separated list of property names. Default when omitted: mfaid, name, type. Properties: api_hostname, clientid, code_length, hash_function, mfaid, name, type."New value: +"Properties of the mfa object to return. Pass 'extend' for all, 'count' for the number of matches only, or a list of property names. Default when omitted: mfaid, name, type. Properties: api_hostname, clientid, code_length, hash_function, mfaid, name, type."
    • changedInput schema / properties / search / anyOf
      Previous value: -[
-  {
-    "additionalProperties": true,
-    "type": "object"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]New value: +[
+  {
+    "propertyNames": {
+      "enum": [
+        "name"
+      ]
+    },
+    "type": "object"
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "null"
+  }
+]
    • changedInput schema / properties / sortfield / anyOf
      Previous value: -[
-  {
-    "type": "string"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]New value: +[
+  {
+    "enum": [
+      "name"
+    ],
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  {
+    "items": {
+      "enum": [
+        "name"
+      ],
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "minItems": 1,
+    "type": "array"
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "null"
+  }
+]
    • changedInput schema / properties / sortfield / description
      Previous value: -"Sort by one or more of: name (comma-separated for several; pair with 'sortorder'). No other property is sortable."New value: +"Sort by one or more of: name (a list for several; pair with 'sortorder'). No other property is sortable."
    • changedInput schema / properties / sortorder / anyOf
      Previous value: -[
-  {
-    "type": "string"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]New value: +[
+  {
+    "enum": [
+      "ASC",
+      "DESC"
+    ],
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  {
+    "items": {
+      "enum": [
+        "ASC",
+        "DESC"
+      ],
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "minItems": 1,
+    "type": "array"
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "null"
+  }
+]
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -{
-  "properties": {
-    "result": {
-      "title": "Result",
-      "type": "string"
-    }
-  },
-  "required": [
-    "result"
-  ],
-  "title": "mfa_getOutput",
-  "type": "object"
-}New value: +null
  2. First observedv1.41.0

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered and the description's burden is lower. It adds useful domain context (MFA methods are assigned to user groups to enforce per-group requirements) but says nothing about pagination, default result limits, or the token policy behavior that the schema's raw_json parameter hints at. Adequate but not rich beyond the annotations.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Four sentences, front-loaded with what the tool retrieves, then background on what MFA methods are, then a use case. The domain sentences are defensible because TOTP vs Duo and user-group assignment are not obvious from the name, though the middle sentence borders on background rather than actionable guidance.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a 13-parameter, read-only list tool with no output schema, the description explains the domain object but not the shape of the returned record or how filters/sorting combine, which an agent would want. Given the rich annotations and full schema coverage some of that burden is offloaded, so this is adequate rather than complete.

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 every one of the 13 parameters, including the non-obvious raw_json policy gate and the filter/search restrictions, is already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning at all, which is the expected baseline-3 case when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 pairs a specific verb ('Retrieve') with a specific resource ('multi-factor authentication methods configured in Zabbix') and even enumerates the two possible types (TOTP, Duo Universal Prompt), so the agent knows exactly what data this returns. It stops short of naming any sibling tool or contrasting scope, so 4 rather than 5.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

'Use this to audit which MFA methods are available and their configuration' supplies one concrete use case, which implies when the tool is appropriate. There is no when-not guidance, no prerequisite (e.g. permissions) mentioned, and no alternative tool named, leaving selection guidance largely 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