Skip to main content
Glama
mhajder

Zabbix MCP Server

by mhajder

problem_get

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve active problems from Zabbix to identify issues with monitored infrastructure. Filter by hosts, groups, triggers, time range, severity, or acknowledgement status to diagnose and resolve incidents.

Instructions

Get problems from Zabbix.

Problems are active trigger states that indicate issues with monitored infrastructure. Each problem is associated with a trigger and can be acknowledged by operators.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoMaximum number of results to return. Default is 100.
offsetNoNumber of matching records to skip. Use with 'limit' to page through results; check 'has_more' and 'total' in the response.
outputNoextend
recentNoIf true, only return recently recovered problems.
searchNoDictionary with search criteria like {'name': 'CPU'}.
hostidsNoList of host IDs to get problems from.
eventidsNoList of event IDs to get problems for. If empty, returns all problems.
groupidsNoList of host group IDs to get problems from.
objectidsNoList of trigger IDs to get problems from.
sortfieldNoField to sort by. A deterministic sort is required for paging to be consistent.eventid
sortorderNoSort direction - 'ASC' or 'DESC'.ASC
time_fromNoUnix timestamp.
time_tillNoUnix timestamp.
severitiesNoSeverity levels 0-5.
suppressedNoIf false, return only unsuppressed problems. If true, return only suppressed problems.
acknowledgedNoIf false, return only unacknowledged problems. If true, return only acknowledged problems.
count_outputNoIf true, returns only the count of matched objects as an integer.
name_containsNoShortcut to search for problems by name (constructs search={'name': name_contains}).

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed5 schema fields changedv0.6.0
    • changedInput schema / properties / offset / description
      Previous value: -"Number of results to skip (for pagination). Requires sortfield to be set."New value: +"Number of matching records to skip. Use with 'limit' to page through results; check 'has_more' and 'total' in the response."
    • removedInput schema / properties / sortfield / anyOf
      Removed value: -[
      -  {
      -    "type": "string"
      -  },
      -  {
      -    "type": "null"
      -  }
      -]
    • changedInput schema / properties / sortfield / default
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +"eventid"
    • changedInput schema / properties / sortfield / description
      Previous value: -"Field to sort by."New value: +"Field to sort by. A deterministic sort is required for paging to be consistent."
    • addedInput schema / properties / sortfield / type
      Added value: +"string"
  2. First observedv0.5.3

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds only domain context, not call-specific behavior such as time-range defaults or response pagination. No contradiction with 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?

The first sentence front-loads the core purpose, and the two subsequent sentences add concise, useful domain context. It is well-sized with no redundant filler.

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?

Given the rich schema, annotations, and output schema presence, the description is sufficient for basic invocation. The main gap is the lack of usage differentiation from similar read tools such as event_get and trigger_get.

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 high at 94%, so the schema already explains the parameters thoroughly. The description contributes no additional parameter semantics, which is acceptable at this coverage level.

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 clearly states the operation: get problems from Zabbix. It adds domain context by defining problems as active trigger states, which helps distinguish them from events or triggers, though it does not explicitly name sibling tools.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no explicit guidance on when to use problem_get versus related tools like event_get or trigger_get. The conceptual description implies use for active issue states, but it does not state alternatives or exclusions.

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

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/mhajder/zabbix-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server