Lists available ZTNA connectivity regions to help identify deployment and routing options for tenant connectors and traffic.
[READ] List connectivity regions.
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_regions"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
readOnlyHint=true already declares this is a safe read, and the "[READ]" prefix merely restates that annotation. Nothing is added about pagination behavior for the limit parameter, whether the list is capped, or what a region record contains.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single short sentence, front-loaded and free of padding. It is concise to the point of under-specification rather than being well-structured guidance.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a list endpoint with an undocumented limit parameter, no output schema, and a singular sibling tool, the description leaves the agent without return shape, pagination, or disambiguation. It is not sufficient on its own.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
One parameter (limit, default 100) has 0% schema description coverage, and the description says nothing about it — no maximum, no pagination semantics, no indication of what happens when the list exceeds the limit.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb and resource: "List connectivity regions". An agent knows it enumerates regions. It does not distinguish itself from the sibling ztna_region (singular) or explain whether regions relate to ztna_sites, so differentiation is left to inference.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No when-to-use guidance, no when-not-to-use, and no mention of the singular sibling ztna_region. The agent must guess whether this is the lookup-list for region IDs used by site creation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.