Symantec ZTNA AIops

ztna_application_policies

Read-only

List policies assigned to a specific application to audit which access rules apply.

Instructions

[READ] List policies assigned to an 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_policies"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No
`application_id`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 7, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes the safety profile, and the '[READ]' tag merely repeats it. The description does add the scoping fact that results are restricted to one application's assignments, which is useful context beyond the annotations. However, it says nothing about the 'limit' default of 100 or whether results are truncated/paginated, which is the main behavioral risk for a list tool.

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?

A single short sentence with the scope front-loaded and no wasted wording. It is concise, but the brevity is partly under-specification rather than pure efficiency.

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?

For a list tool with a capped limit parameter and no output schema, the description should say what the returned records look like and how many come back by default. Neither is addressed, so an agent cannot predict the shape or volume of the response from the definition alone.

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 description carries the full burden for both parameters and adds no meaning at all. It does not explain that application_id identifies which app's assignments to return, nor that limit caps the number of policies returned, leaving both fields to be guessed from their names.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('List policies') plus a scope ('assigned to an application'), which is enough to distinguish it from the singular ztna_policy or the global ztna_policies. It stops short of explicitly naming that sibling, so the differentiation rests on the reader's inference.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. An agent must infer from the phrase 'assigned to an application' that this is the filtered alternative to ztna_policies, and the description never says so or mentions any prerequisite for knowing the application_id.

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