Symantec ZTNA AIops

ztna_connector_metrics

Read-only

Reads bounded connector utilization metrics for a specific site and time range, helping monitor ZTNA connector health and capacity.

Instructions

[READ] Read bounded connector utilization metrics.

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": {
      "site_id": "<site_id>",
      "start_ms": "<start_ms>",
      "end_ms": "<end_ms>",
      "metric": "<metric>"
    },
    "name": "ztna_connector_metrics"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`step`	No
`end_ms`	Yes
`metric`	Yes
`site_id`	Yes
`start_ms`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 7, 2026

TDQS

C2.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes that this is a read-only operation, and the description mostly repeats that with '[READ]'. The word 'bounded' hints at a result limit but does not explain the bound, pagination, time-range behavior, or any other operational constraint.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The definition is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is structurally clean. Its extreme brevity is under-specification rather than helpful concision, given the tool's five parameters and missing schema descriptions.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness1/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a five-parameter metrics query with no output schema and no parameter descriptions, the definition is far too thin. It does not explain metric choices, timestamp units, required site scope, step behavior, or what the returned metrics represent.

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

Parameters1/5

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

With five parameters and 0% schema description coverage, the description should explain site_id, start_ms, end_ms, metric, and step. It mentions none of them, so an agent gets no added meaning beyond bare parameter names and types.

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 names a read operation on connector utilization metrics, so the basic verb and resource are present. However, 'bounded' is unexplained, no specific metrics are identified, and it does not distinguish this from related siblings such as ztna_health_sample or ztna_connectors.

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 use this tool instead of related tools, nor any prerequisite or scope conditions. An agent must infer the intended use entirely from the short phrase and the tool name.

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