Zabbix MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

mfa_get

Read-only

Retrieve configured Zabbix MFA methods, such as TOTP and Duo, to audit available login second factors and their user-group assignments.

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

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`limit`	No	Maximum number of results to return.
`filter`	No	Return 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.
`mfaids`	No	Return only MFA methods with the given IDs.
`output`	No	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.
`search`	No	Return 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.
`server`	No	Target Zabbix server. Available: default. Defaults to 'default' if omitted.
`raw_json`	No	Strips 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.
`sortfield`	No	Sort by one or more of: name (comma-separated for several; pair with 'sortorder'). No other property is sortable.
`sortorder`	No	Sort order: 'ASC' (ascending) or 'DESC' (descending).
`countOutput`	No	Return the count of matching results instead of the actual data.
`searchByAny`	No	If true, return results matching ANY search field (OR). Default is ALL fields (AND).
`extra_params`	No	Other 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.
`searchWildcardsEnabled`	No	If true, enable * and ? wildcards in search patterns.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.41.0Oct 20, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds useful domain context (MFA methods are the second factor at login and are enforced per user group), but says nothing about authentication requirements, rate limits, or result-size behavior for a multi-server tool.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose before the domain background and the audit use case. The TOTP/Duo explanation earns its place by telling the agent what values the returned 'type' field represents, and there is no filler.

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 an output schema, full parameter descriptions, and read-only annotations supplied elsewhere, the description only needs to supply purpose and domain framing, which it does. It is complete for calling the tool correctly, though it could note that MFA methods are few and pagination rarely matters.

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% across all 13 parameters, so the schema already documents limit, filter, search, output, sortfield, and the rest in detail. The description adds no parameter-level guidance (e.g. that filtering is restricted to mfaid/type keys or that selectUsrgrps lives in extra_params), so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Retrieve multi-factor authentication methods configured in Zabbix') and then defines precisely what an MFA method is (TOTP or Duo Universal Prompt, assigned to user groups). No sibling tool covers MFA, so there is no ambiguity about which tool to pick.

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 states a concrete usage scenario: 'Use this to audit which MFA methods are available and their configuration.' That gives the agent clear context for when the tool applies, but it names no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative tools for adjacent questions (e.g. usergroup_get for group assignment).

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server