Symantec ZTNA AIops

ztna_shared_object

Read-only

Retrieve one shared policy object by object ID to inspect its configuration and verify policy settings.

Instructions

[READ] Read one shared policy object.

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": {
      "object_id": "<object_id>"
    },
    "name": "ztna_shared_object"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`object_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 readOnlyHint annotation already establishes the safety profile, so the "[READ]" prefix adds nothing new. The description does not say what happens if the object_id does not exist, whether permissions scope, or any other behavioral trait beyond the annotation.

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 short sentence with no padding, but the "[READ]" tag merely restates an annotation and the terseness comes at the cost of under-specification rather than efficiency.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a one-parameter read tool with no output schema, little explanation is strictly required, and the annotations cover safety. Still, an agent gets no hint about the returned object's shape or how the id is discovered, which leaves avoidable ambiguity.

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% for the single parameter object_id, and the description does not compensate — it never explains the identifier's format or where the agent should source it (e.g., from ztna_shared_objects). This is a genuine gap for the only input the tool requires.

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?

"[READ] Read one shared policy object" gives a specific verb (read) and resource (shared policy object), and the singular form distinguishes it from the sibling ztna_shared_objects list tool. It stops short of naming that sibling or explaining what a 'shared object' actually contains, so differentiation is implied by naming convention only.

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 guidance on when to call this versus ztna_shared_objects or how to obtain an object_id. The agent must infer from the singular/plural naming pair that this is the single-record fetch.

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