Skip to main content
Glama
mpeirone

zabbix-mcp-server

by mpeirone
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
Python
Remote

user_delete

Remove specified users from Zabbix by providing their user IDs. Returns a JSON-formatted result confirming the deletion process.

Instructions

Delete users from Zabbix.

Args:
    userids: List of user IDs to delete
    
Returns:
    str: JSON formatted deletion result

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
useridsYes

Implementation Reference

  • src/zabbix_mcp_server.py:1013-1027 (handler)
    The 'user_delete' tool handler, decorated with @mcp.tool() for registration. It validates read-only mode, retrieves the Zabbix client, deletes the specified users via the Zabbix API, and returns a formatted JSON response.
    @mcp.tool()
def user_delete(userids: List[str]) -> str:
    """Delete users from Zabbix.
    
    Args:
        userids: List of user IDs to delete
        
    Returns:
        str: JSON formatted deletion result
    """
    validate_read_only()
    
    client = get_zabbix_client()
    result = client.user.delete(*userids)
    return format_response(result)

Tool Definition Quality

C2.9/5.0
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 states the tool deletes users but doesn't mention critical details like required permissions, whether deletion is reversible, rate limits, or error handling. The return format is mentioned ('JSON formatted deletion result'), but without specifics on structure or success/failure indicators, leaving significant gaps.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose. The Args and Returns sections are structured but could be more integrated. Every sentence adds value, though minor improvements in flow could make it a 5.

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 tool's complexity (destructive operation), lack of annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It misses critical context like side effects, authentication needs, and detailed return values. For a deletion tool, this leaves the agent under-informed about risks and outcomes.

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 explains that 'userids' is a 'List of user IDs to delete', adding basic meaning beyond the schema's array type. However, it doesn't clarify ID format, source, or validation rules. With one parameter and partial compensation, this meets the baseline for minimal viability.

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 action ('Delete') and resource ('users from Zabbix'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like user_create, user_get, and user_update by focusing on deletion. However, it doesn't specify whether this is a soft or hard delete, which would make it a perfect 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the name implies deletion, there's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., ensuring users aren't active), consequences (e.g., data loss), or comparisons to similar tools like host_delete or template_delete. The description lacks explicit when/when-not instructions.

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