Skip to main content
Glama
mpeirone

zabbix-mcp-server

configuration_export

Export Zabbix configuration in JSON or XML format for easy integration and system management. Specify format and options to retrieve structured data directly from the MCP server.

Instructions

Export configuration from Zabbix.

Args:
    format: Export format (json, xml)
    options: Export options
    
Returns:
    str: JSON formatted export result

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
formatNojson
optionsNo

Implementation Reference

  • The handler function for the 'configuration_export' MCP tool. It uses the Zabbix API client to export configuration in the specified format (default JSON) with optional parameters, formats the response, and returns it as a string. Registered via @mcp.tool() decorator.
    def configuration_export(format: str = "json",
                             options: Optional[Dict[str, Any]] = None) -> str:
        """Export configuration from Zabbix.
        
        Args:
            format: Export format (json, xml)
            options: Export options
            
        Returns:
            str: JSON formatted export result
        """
        client = get_zabbix_client()
        params = {"format": format}
        
        if options:
            params["options"] = options
        
        result = client.configuration.export(**params)
        return format_response(result)
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the return type ('JSON formatted export result') but doesn't cover critical aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, whether the export is read-only or has side effects, or error handling. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 description is well-structured with clear sections (Args, Returns) and uses minimal sentences. Each part adds value: the first sentence states the purpose, followed by parameter and return details. It could be slightly more front-loaded by emphasizing the core purpose first, but overall it's efficient with zero waste.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the complexity (export operation with 2 parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the scope of 'configuration' (e.g., what objects are exported), provide examples of 'options', or detail behavioral aspects like permissions or side effects. For a tool with zero structured coverage, this leaves too many unanswered questions.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It lists both parameters ('format' and 'options') and provides some semantic context: 'format' accepts 'json' or 'xml', and 'options' relates to 'Export options'. However, it doesn't explain what 'options' contains or provide examples, leaving parameters partially undocumented. This meets the baseline for minimal compensation.

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 verb ('Export') and resource ('configuration from Zabbix'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'configuration_import' by focusing on export rather than import. However, it doesn't specify what aspects of configuration are exported (e.g., hosts, templates, triggers), which prevents a perfect score.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the name suggests it's for exporting configuration, there's no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or comparison with other export-related tools (none appear in the sibling list). The description lacks any 'when' or 'when not' context.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Related Tools

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/mpeirone/zabbix-mcp-server'

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