Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Symantec ZTNA AIops

Symantec ZTNA AIops

by AIops-tools
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

ztna_policy_condition_definitions

Read-only

Retrieves policy condition schema definitions to help you validate and construct ZTNA access policy rules.

Instructions

[READ] Read policy condition schema.

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_policy_condition_definitions"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes that this is a safe read, and the "[READ]" prefix merely restates it. The description adds no behavioral context about what the call returns, whether the schema is static or tenant-specific, or how large the payload is.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

It is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is good, but it is terse to the point of under-specification. The "[READ]" tag duplicates the readOnlyHint annotation and occupies space that could have clarified the return content.

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?

With no output schema, the description is the only source of information about what comes back, and it does not say. For a schema-introspection tool whose entire value is its return payload, this leaves the agent unable to predict the result or decide it is the right call.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to explain and the baseline of 4 applies. No parameter-level meaning is missing.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a verb and a resource ("Read policy condition schema"), so the general intent is graspable, but "policy condition definitions" is ambiguous — it could mean the set of condition types, their accepted operators, or their value constraints. It also does not differentiate itself from near-identical siblings such as ztna_policy_action_types and ztna_policy_validator_types, which appear to serve the same lookup role.

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 is given on when to call this tool, what question it answers, or which sibling to use instead. With three sibling schema-lookup tools in the list, an agent has no stated basis for choosing among them.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools