Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Zabbix MCP Server

Zabbix MCP Server

by initMAX
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

sla_getsli

Read-only

Fetch period-by-period SLA service level indicator values to verify availability against SLO targets. Use SLA ID, optional service IDs, and time filters.

Instructions

Get SLA Service Level Indicator (SLI) data — the actual calculated availability percentages for services covered by an SLA. Returns period-by-period SLI values showing whether the SLO target was met. Required: 'slaid'. Optionally filter by 'serviceids' and time range with 'period_from'/'period_to', or ask for a number of 'periods'.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
slaidYesID of the SLA to retrieve SLI data for.
serverNoTarget Zabbix server. Available: default. Defaults to 'default' if omitted.
periodsNoPreferred number of periods to return (1 to 100). With one of period_from / period_to it counts from that end; with neither, the most recent periods are returned.
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.
period_toNoReturn SLI data up to this time (Unix timestamp, ISO 8601 date-time such as 2026-04-01T08:00:00Z, or a relative time such as now-1h, now/d or now-7d/d; a value without a zone is read in the zone resolved for the call).
serviceidsNoReturn SLI data only for these service IDs.
period_fromNoReturn SLI data starting from this time (Unix timestamp, ISO 8601 date-time such as 2026-04-01T08:00:00Z, or a relative time such as now-1h, now/d or now-7d/d; a value without a zone is read in the zone resolved for the call).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changedv1.42.2
    • addedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Added value: +false
    • addedInput schema / properties / periods
      Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "description": "Preferred number of periods to return (1 to 100). With one of period_from / period_to it counts from that end; with neither, the most recent periods are returned.",
+  "title": "Periods"
+}
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -{
-  "properties": {
-    "result": {
-      "title": "Result",
-      "type": "string"
-    }
-  },
-  "required": [
-    "result"
-  ],
-  "title": "sla_getsliOutput",
-  "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?

The annotations already mark this as a read-only, closed-world operation, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds useful behavioral detail by explaining that the response contains period-by-period SLI values and indicates whether the SLO target was met.

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?

The description is two sentences long and front-loads the core purpose. Every sentence contributes useful information without redundant wording.

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 tool with seven parameters and no output schema, the description gives an adequate summary of the return values and filtering options. The detailed parameter schema covers the remaining specifics, though the description could say slightly more about the response fields.

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 the schema already documents each parameter thoroughly. The description correctly names the required slaid and optional filters, but it mostly restates parameter roles rather than adding new syntax or format guidance.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Get SLA Service Level Indicator (SLI) data'. It further clarifies that this is calculated availability rather than SLA configuration, which helps distinguish it from siblings like sla_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?

The description clearly explains that the tool returns calculated SLI values and how optional filters narrow results. It does not explicitly say when to choose sla_get instead or name any alternative, so it provides clear context but no exclusions.

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