Symantec ZTNA AIops

ztna_dns_servers

Read-only

Lists DNS servers in a specified group to help verify DNS configuration and troubleshoot ZTNA connectivity.

Instructions

[READ] List DNS servers in a group.

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": {
      "group_id": "<group_id>"
    },
    "name": "ztna_dns_servers"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No
`group_id`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 7, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the '[READ]' tag in the description is redundant rather than additive. Nothing is said about pagination behavior despite a 'limit' parameter with a default of 100, nor about what happens for an unknown group_id.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, which is efficient for a simple list tool. The bracketed '[READ]' marker is wasted words since it duplicates the annotation.

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 two-parameter list tool with no output schema and no annotations beyond readOnly, the description should explain return shape or pagination. It leaves the agent guessing about ordering, response format, and the limit parameter's effect.

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 must carry parameter meaning, and it only implicitly covers group_id via the word 'group'. The 'limit' parameter, its default of 100, and the consequences of exceeding it are entirely undocumented.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('List DNS servers') plus a scope ('in a group'), which separates it from ztna_dns_groups (lists groups) and ztna_dns_server (single server). It is not tautological, but it draws no explicit contrast with those siblings.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The '[READ]' prefix and the phrase 'in a group' imply the tool is used to enumerate servers belonging to a known group, so usage is inferable. However, it never states when to use ztna_dns_group or ztna_dns_server instead, and gives no exclusions.

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