Symantec ZTNA AIops

ztna_sites

Read-only

Lists one page of tenant sites, with optional filtering and pagination, to help you inspect site inventory or find specific sites by text.

Instructions

[READ] List one page of tenant sites.

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_sites"
  }
}

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

C2.6/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the '[READ]' claim, so that prefix adds no information. Beyond annotations, the description only implies pagination without stating page size defaults (limit=50), whether total counts are returned, or what a page contains. For a list tool with no output schema, this leaves the agent guessing about the return shape.

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?

A single short sentence with zero filler and the scope qualifier placed early. However, the terseness here is under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness, leaving key behavior unstated.

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 three undocumented parameters, no output schema, and only a readOnly annotation, the description carries a heavy burden but supplies almost nothing. An agent cannot determine page size behavior, filtering semantics, or the shape of returned site records from this definition.

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% and all three parameters (page, limit, filter_text) lack any schema-level documentation. The description's mention of 'one page' weakly signals that 'page' controls pagination but says nothing about limit semantics or what filter_text matches against (name, region, connector?).

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 and resource ('List ... tenant sites') plus scope ('one page'), which distinguishes it from the singular sibling ztna_site. It does not name any sibling explicitly, but the plural-vs-singular naming convention makes the distinction inferable.

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 versus ztna_site (single-site detail) or ztna_site_status. The only usage signal is implicit in 'one page', which hints at pagination iteration but never says how to traverse pages or when to stop.

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