Skip to main content
Glama
mpeirone

zabbix-mcp-server

host_update

Update an existing host in Zabbix by modifying its ID, name, visible name, or status using the specified parameters. Returns JSON-formatted results for seamless integration.

Instructions

Update an existing host in Zabbix.

Args:
    hostid: Host ID to update
    host: New host name
    name: New visible name
    status: New status (0=enabled, 1=disabled)
    
Returns:
    str: JSON formatted update result

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
hostNo
hostidYes
nameNo
statusNo

Implementation Reference

  • The host_update MCP tool handler function that updates an existing host in Zabbix using the Zabbix API client. It validates read-only mode, prepares parameters, calls the API, and formats the response.
    @mcp.tool()
    def host_update(hostid: str, host: Optional[str] = None, 
                    name: Optional[str] = None, status: Optional[int] = None) -> str:
        """Update an existing host in Zabbix.
        
        Args:
            hostid: Host ID to update
            host: New host name
            name: New visible name
            status: New status (0=enabled, 1=disabled)
            
        Returns:
            str: JSON formatted update result
        """
        validate_read_only()
        
        client = get_zabbix_client()
        params = {"hostid": hostid}
        
        if host:
            params["host"] = host
        if name:
            params["name"] = name
        if status is not None:
            params["status"] = status
        
        result = client.host.update(**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 full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is an update operation (implying mutation) and mentions a JSON return format, but lacks critical details: permission requirements, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, error handling, or what 'update 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.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is well-structured and appropriately sized. It front-loads the purpose in one sentence, then lists parameters and returns in clear sections. Every sentence earns its place, though the 'Returns' line could be slightly more informative (e.g., specifying what 'update result' includes).

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 this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic purpose and parameters but lacks behavioral context (e.g., side effects, auth needs) and detailed return value explanation. The parameter explanations help, but overall it's adequate with clear gaps for a tool that modifies data.

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 (e.g., 'hostid: Host ID to update', 'status: New status (0=enabled, 1=disabled)'), including an enum-like mapping for status. This compensates well for the schema's lack of descriptions, though it doesn't cover all nuances like nullability.

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 tool's purpose: 'Update an existing host in Zabbix.' It specifies the verb ('Update'), resource ('host'), and system ('Zabbix'), making the action unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like host_create or host_delete, which would require a 5.

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 a hostid from host_get), compare to host_create for new hosts, or specify error conditions. The agent must infer usage from context alone.

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