Symantec ZTNA AIops

ztna_policies

Read-only

Lists one page of ZTNA access policies with optional paging and text filters to help review or audit policy coverage.

Instructions

[READ] List one page of access policies.

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_policies"
  }
}

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?

readOnlyHint=true already declares the read-only safety profile, so the '[READ]' prefix adds nothing new. Beyond that, 'one page' is the sole behavioral disclosure: it does not state the default page size (50), whether results are sorted, or how to know if more pages exist, and there is no output schema to fill that gap.

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 zero filler and the read-only marker up front. It is efficient, though the brevity verges on under-specification rather than tightness.

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 listing tool with three undescribed parameters, no output schema, and 30-plus sibling tools including near-identical singular and application-scoped variants, the description is far too thin. An agent cannot tell what filter_text accepts or how pagination terminates without 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% across all three parameters, so the description must carry the weight — but it only gestures at 'page' via the phrase 'one page'. It says nothing about limit, the page numbering base (0), or what filter_text matches against, leaving all three parameters effectively 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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (access policies), plus the paged scope, which distinguishes it from the singular ztna_policy and the narrower ztna_application_policies. It does not name those siblings explicitly, so an agent must infer the boundary from naming conventions.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus ztna_policy (single fetch) or ztna_application_policies (per-application scoping). The only usage signal is the implied 'list all' semantics, leaving the agent to guess.

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