Symantec ZTNA AIops

ztna_collection

Read-only

Retrieve details for a single site collection by collection ID to inspect its configuration and support ZTNA administration.

Instructions

[READ] Read one site collection.

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": {
      "collection_id": "<collection_id>"
    },
    "name": "ztna_collection"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`collection_id`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 7, 2026

TDQS

C2.8/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

The readOnlyHint already establishes that this is a safe read operation, and the description mostly restates that with the [READ] tag. It adds no behavioral context such as what happens when collection_id is invalid, whether missing collections are indicated, or what the response includes beyond a single record.

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence with no waste, appropriate for a simple retrieval tool. However, its brevity reflects under-specification rather than tightly packed information.

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 one-parameter read tool with annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It still leaves clear gaps around sibling disambiguation and the meaning of collection_id, which an agent would need when deciding whether and how to call it.

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 would need to explain collection_id. Instead, it only implies that the parameter identifies a site collection and gives no format, source, or constraints; the parameter name remains the main available clue.

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: read one site collection. It implies singular retrieval versus the plural list-style siblings such as ztna_collections, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from ztna_site_collections or explain what a site collection is.

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?

The description says only what the tool does, not when to use it. With many collection-related siblings, it gives no guidance on choosing this tool over ztna_collections or ztna_site_collections, nor any prerequisites.

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