List SSH clients in Symantec ZTNA AIops to review endpoint access, with pagination and text filtering.
[READ] List SSH clients.
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_ssh_clients"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| filter_text | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds nothing beyond that. It omits return shape, whether results are paginated by default, ordering, and the fact that page/limit defaults exist, leaving the agent with no behavioral context for a listing operation that clearly supports paging.
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?
The single short sentence is front-loaded and free of waste, but brevity here is under-specification rather than efficiency. It could afford one more sentence covering filtering and paging without becoming verbose.
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 three-parameter paginated list tool with no output schema and no parameter documentation, the description leaves too much unstated: pagination semantics, filter behavior, and what a returned client record contains. Annotations cover only the safety profile, not the operational details an agent needs to call it well.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0% across three parameters, so the description carries the full burden and fails: page, limit, and filter_text are never mentioned or explained. An agent cannot tell whether filter_text matches client name, host, or address, nor what the default page size implies.
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?
The description states a specific verb and resource ("List SSH clients"), which is more than a tautology. However, it gives no scope or distinguishing detail versus the many other ztna_* listing tools, and it never clarifies what an "SSH client" represents in this product, so an agent must infer meaning from the name alone.
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?
The only usage signal is the "[READ]" tag, which merely restates the readOnlyHint annotation. There is no statement of when to use this versus other listing tools, no prerequisites, and no indication of whether pagination is required to enumerate the full set.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.