Symantec ZTNA AIops

ztna_dns_groups

Read-only

List DNS resiliency groups with pagination and optional text filtering to inspect configured DNS resilience.

Instructions

[READ] List DNS resiliency groups.

Tool call template

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_dns_groups"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`page`	No
`limit`	No
`filter_text`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 7, 2026

TDQS

C2.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already declares this is a safe read, and '[READ]' duplicates it rather than adding value. The description does not disclose pagination behavior (default page 0, limit 50), whether results are truncated, or what a group object contains.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is concise, though the brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined editing.

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 paginated list tool with three undocumented parameters, no output schema, and many DNS-related siblings, the description omits return shape, filter scope, and pagination semantics. An agent would have to guess how to page and what filter_text filters on.

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 three parameters page, limit, and filter_text are documented nowhere. The description never mentions them, leaving ambiguity about what filter_text matches (name, DNS server, site) and how paging behaves. The generic parameter names partially mitigate this, but not enough to compensate for zero coverage.

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 and resource: 'List DNS resiliency groups', which clearly reads as a collection endpoint distinct from the singular sibling ztna_dns_group. It does not explicitly name that sibling, but the plural/singular naming convention makes the distinction inferable.

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 only guidance is the '[READ]' tag, which merely restates the readOnlyHint annotation. There is no statement of when to use this list endpoint versus ztna_dns_group or ztna_dns_servers, and no prerequisites or expected workflow.

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