Skip to main content
Glama
mpeirone

zabbix-mcp-server

event_acknowledge

Acknowledge or close Zabbix events by specifying event IDs, action type, and an optional message. Returns a JSON result of the acknowledgment process for tracking and integration.

Instructions

Acknowledge events in Zabbix.

Args:
    eventids: List of event IDs to acknowledge
    action: Acknowledge action (1=acknowledge, 2=close, etc.)
    message: Acknowledge message
    
Returns:
    str: JSON formatted acknowledgment result

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
actionNo
eventidsYes
messageNo

Implementation Reference

  • The event_acknowledge tool handler: acknowledges specified events in Zabbix using the API, with optional message. Registered via @mcp.tool() decorator. Validates read-only mode before execution.
    @mcp.tool()
    def event_acknowledge(eventids: List[str], action: int = 1,
                          message: Optional[str] = None) -> str:
        """Acknowledge events in Zabbix.
        
        Args:
            eventids: List of event IDs to acknowledge
            action: Acknowledge action (1=acknowledge, 2=close, etc.)
            message: Acknowledge message
            
        Returns:
            str: JSON formatted acknowledgment result
        """
        validate_read_only()
        
        client = get_zabbix_client()
        params = {
            "eventids": eventids,
            "action": action
        }
        
        if message:
            params["message"] = message
        
        result = client.event.acknowledge(**params)
        return format_response(result)
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the tool acknowledges events (implying a write/mutation operation) and describes parameters, but lacks critical details: it doesn't specify permissions required, whether acknowledgments are reversible, rate limits, or what the JSON result contains. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by clear parameter explanations and return value information. Every sentence earns its place, with no wasted words, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 tool's complexity (a mutation operation with 3 parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers parameters well but lacks behavioral context like permissions, side effects, or result format details. The return statement mentions JSON but doesn't describe its structure, leaving gaps for effective use.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The description adds significant value beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains each parameter's purpose: 'eventids' as a list of IDs to acknowledge, 'action' with specific numeric meanings (1=acknowledge, 2=close, etc.), and 'message' as an acknowledgment message. This compensates well for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 'acknowledge' and the resource 'events in Zabbix', making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'event_get' or 'problem_get', which might retrieve events without modifying them.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing specific permissions), when acknowledgment is appropriate, or how it differs from other event-related tools like 'event_get' or 'problem_get'.

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