Retrieve current item values for a specific host, with an optional filter to find items by partial name match. Use it to inspect live metrics and item data from Zabbix.
Get current item values for a host.
Args: host: Hostname (exact match) search: Filter items by name (partial match)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| host | Yes | ||
| search | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it retrieves values but does not disclose potential errors for unknown hosts, pagination, authentication requirements, or whether results are sorted. The 'exact match' and 'partial match' notes are more about parameter semantics than behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: one opening sentence and two bullet-style argument explanations. Every sentence earns its place, and it's front-loaded with the core purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple with two parameters and an output schema exists, so return format need not be described. However, there's no usage context or edge-case handling mentioned, and the absence of annotations leaves the safety profile unclear. It's adequate but not complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description compensates by adding matching behavior: 'host' is exact match and 'search' is partial match by name. This adds meaning beyond the schema's bare type definitions, though it doesn't explain formats like FQDN vs IP or regex support.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb and resource: 'Get current item values for a host.' This distinguishes it from siblings like get_hosts (listing hosts) and get_problems (problems), so it's unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
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. The description doesn't mention any exclusions or recommend when get_host_items is preferable to siblings. Users must infer from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.