Lists blocked identities in Symantec ZTNA to help review denied users and investigate access restrictions.
[READ] List blocked identities.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "ztna_blocked_users"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The "[READ]" prefix merely restates the supplied readOnlyHint=true annotation, adding no new information. The description says nothing about pagination behavior, default result sizing, ordering, or what a blocked identity record contains — all of which matter for a list endpoint with no output schema.
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?
It is a single short sentence, so nothing is wasted, but this is brevity through under-specification rather than disciplined concision. The read marker is front-loaded, yet the substantive content is absent.
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?
With no output schema, an undocumented limit parameter, and ~38 sibling tools in the ZTNA namespace, the description should carry more weight than one line. It does not explain return shape, pagination, or resource scope, leaving the agent under-equipped to call it correctly.
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?
There is one parameter (limit, default 100) with 0% schema description coverage, so the description is the only place its meaning could be explained. It says nothing about the limit — not the default, not a maximum, not whether results are truncated or paginated.
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 gives a verb and a resource ("List blocked identities"), so the basic operation is inferable. However, "identities" is ambiguous against the many sibling tools (ztna_users, ztna_groups, ztna_user), and nothing in the text clarifies what a "blocked identity" is or how it relates to those resources.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus ztna_users or ztna_groups, nor any stated prerequisites such as required scopes or account state. The agent must guess whether this returns users, groups, or something else entirely.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.