Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Zabbix MCP Server

Zabbix MCP Server

by initMAX
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

user_checkauthentication

Read-only

Checks a provided Zabbix auth_sessionid for validity and returns the authenticated user's details if the session is active.

Instructions

Check whether a session is still valid. Returns the authenticated user's details if so. Requires auth_sessionid to be set to a session id (typically from a prior user.login); the configured server credentials (api_token or username/password) cannot validate against the session table.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
tokenNoA Zabbix API token to check instead of a session id (do not send both).
extendNoWhether checking a session also extends its lifetime (Zabbix default: true). Not used with 'token'.
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.
sessionidNoSession id whose validity should be checked. If omitted, the auth_sessionid (the calling session) is checked instead.
auth_sessionidYesSession id from a prior user.login call. The MCP wrapper passes it as the request's auth field; the call validates exactly this session id.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed4 schema fields changedv1.42.2
    • addedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Added value: +false
    • addedInput schema / properties / extend
      Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "description": "Whether checking a session also extends its lifetime (Zabbix default: true). Not used with 'token'.",
+  "title": "Extend"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / token
      Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "description": "A Zabbix API token to check instead of a session id (do not send both).",
+  "title": "Token"
+}
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -{
-  "properties": {
-    "result": {
-      "title": "Result",
-      "type": "string"
-    }
-  },
-  "required": [
-    "result"
-  ],
-  "title": "user_checkauthenticationOutput",
-  "type": "object"
-}New value: +null
  2. First observedv1.41.0

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
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 description's job is to add context, which it does: it discloses that the call validates exactly the supplied session, that a session must exist from a prior login, and that the configured credentials cannot substitute. It omits the token-based alternative path entirely, which is a notable behavioral gap given the schema exposes it.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and result, then the precondition. The doubled-backtick markup is slightly noisy but no sentence is wasted.

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 six-parameter read-only validation tool with no output schema, the description is largely sufficient: it says what is checked, what is required, and what is returned. The main omission is any mention of the token-based check path exposed in the schema, which could confuse an agent reading only the description.

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 parameters are already documented in detail. The description reinforces the required 'auth_sessionid' semantics (from a prior user.login, passed as the request auth field), but adds nothing about the 'token', 'extend', 'sessionid', 'server' or 'raw_json' parameters that would refine what the schema already says.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Check whether a session is still valid') and states the outcome ('Returns the authenticated user's details'). It is clearly distinguishable from the surrounding *_get toolset, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with siblings such as user_get or authentication_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?

It gives clear context for invocation: use it to validate a session typically obtained from a prior 'user.login', and it warns that the configured server credentials cannot be used for this validation. No explicit alternatives or when-not cases are names, so it stops short of a 5.

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