Symantec ZTNA AIops

ztna_group

Read-only

Retrieves one identity group by provider and group ID so you can inspect its details for access and policy checks.

Instructions

[READ] Read one identity 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": {
      "provider_id": "<provider_id>",
      "group_id": "<group_id>"
    },
    "name": "ztna_group"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`group_id`	Yes
`provider_id`	Yes

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 annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the '[READ]' tag merely restates that, adding no value. With no output schema and no annotations covering errors, permissions, or not-found behavior, the description should carry the behavioral burden but says nothing about what is returned or what happens on an invalid 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?

A single short sentence with the key verb and resource front-loaded and no wasted words. The '[READ]' prefix is redundant with the readOnlyHint annotation, which is the only minor inefficiency.

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 tool with two mandatory, fully undocumented parameters and no output schema, the description is too thin. An agent cannot tell what provider_id scopes or what shape the returned group takes, so it would likely need trial and error.

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%, and both group_id and provider_id are required with no descriptions. The description implies 'identity group' is the target, but adds no meaning for provider_id (e.g., which provider namespace the group lives in) or the expected ID format.

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 (identity group) and specifies cardinality with 'one', which implicitly distinguishes it from the plural listing sibling ztna_groups. However, it never names the sibling explicitly, so an agent must infer the read-one-vs-list distinction from naming convention alone.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternative such as ztna_groups or ztna_group_users. The only hint is 'one', which weakly implies this is the single-object retrieval path.

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