Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Symantec ZTNA AIops

Symantec ZTNA AIops

by AIops-tools
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

ztna_connector

Read-only

Retrieve a ZTNA connector's details and current state by connector ID to inspect connectivity or health status.

Instructions

[READ] Read one connector and its state.

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": {
      "connector_id": "<connector_id>"
    },
    "name": "ztna_connector"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
connector_idYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

The readOnlyHint=true annotation already tells the agent this is a safe read, so the '[READ]' tag restates structured data without adding value. The phrase 'and its state' hints at the returned content, but there is no mention of auth requirements, error behavior when the connector ID is unknown, or pagination/format of the response.

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 zero filler or repetition. It is efficient, though the terseness edges into under-specification rather than optimal economy.

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 one-parameter, no-output-schema read tool the definition is usable but thin: it omits the ID format, the source of the ID, and any indication of what 'state' contains. An agent would need to guess which sibling to call first to get a connector_id.

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% for the single required parameter connector_id, and the description does not compensate — it never states the identifier's expected format (UUID, name, opaque ID) or how to obtain it, e.g. from ztna_connectors. This is the main gap for an otherwise trivial call signature.

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?

States a specific verb (read) and resource (one connector) plus the returned payload (its state). The singular 'one connector' implicitly contrasts with the plural sibling ztna_connectors, but the description never names that sibling explicitly, so the differentiation relies on the agent noticing the naming pattern.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of the obvious alternatives: ztna_connectors for listing, ztna_connector_version, or ztna_connector_metrics for other connector data. The agent must infer selection purely from singular vs plural tool names.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools