Symantec ZTNA AIops

ztna_policy

Read-only

Fetch one ZTNA access policy by ID to review its rules and configuration.

Instructions

[READ] Read one access policy.

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": {
      "policy_id": "<policy_id>"
    },
    "name": "ztna_policy"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`policy_id`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 7, 2026

TDQS

C2.8/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the safety profile, and the '[READ]' prefix merely restates it. Nothing is added about behavior on an unknown policy_id, required permissions, or whether policies are scoped to an application or organization.

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?

The sentence is front-loaded and free of padding, which is good. The only waste is the redundant '[READ]' tag that duplicates readOnlyHint=true, and the terseness tips into under-specification.

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?

This is a simple single-parameter read with annotations and no output schema, so the bar is low. Even so, an agent gets no information on ID format, error behavior, or the relationship to the ztna_policies list tool, leaving the definition inadequate for reliable invocation.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0% and there is exactly one required parameter, policy_id, whose format and provenance are explained nowhere. The description could have said how to obtain the ID (e.g., from ztna_policies) and does not, so it fails to compensate for the total coverage gap.

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 states a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('access policy') and the word 'one' signals a single-item fetch. It does not explicitly name the sibling ztna_policies list tool, so the singular/plural distinction must be inferred from the tool name alone.

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?

'Read one access policy' implies a lookup-by-id operation, which is a minimal but workable usage cue. There is no guidance on when to prefer this over ztna_policies or ztna_application_policies, and no mention of where a valid policy_id comes from.

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