Symantec ZTNA AIops

ztna_application

Read-only

Retrieves details for one application using its application ID, enabling users to review configuration and status within Symantec ZTNA AIops.

Instructions

[READ] Read one application.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "application_id": "<application_id>"
    },
    "name": "ztna_application"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`application_id`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 7, 2026

TDQS

C2.6/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already declares this a safe read, and the description's "[READ]" tag merely repeats that. Nothing is added about what happens on an invalid or unknown application_id, whether the response includes policies/connectors, or any permission requirements. With no output schema, the description carries more burden than it does here.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words and the read semantics stated first. It is efficient, though its brevity borders on under-specification rather than being genuinely tight.

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?

For a trivial single-parameter read tool with a readOnlyHint annotation, the definition covers the minimum an agent needs to attempt a call. It still omits how to source the ID and what the response contains, which matters since there is no output schema.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the single parameter application_id is undocumented in the schema, and the description does not compensate by explaining what the ID identifies or how to obtain it. The description adds no meaning beyond the property name.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description pairs the verb "[READ]/Read" with the resource "one application", which at least signals single-resource retrieval versus the plural sibling ztna_applications. However, it never explicitly differentiates from siblings like ztna_applications or ztna_application_status, and "Read one application" is close to restating the tool name. It is minimally clear but adds little identifying detail.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus ztna_applications (list) or ztna_application_status, nor any note that application_id must first be obtained from a list call. The agent is left to infer usage from the name alone.

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