Symantec ZTNA AIops

ztna_user

Read-only

Retrieves a single user identity from a specified provider using provider and user IDs, enabling identity lookup for access and audit checks.

Instructions

[READ] Read one user identity.

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": {
      "provider_id": "<provider_id>",
      "user_id": "<user_id>"
    },
    "name": "ztna_user"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`user_id`	Yes
`provider_id`	Yes

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 declares this is a safe read, and the description's '[READ]' adds nothing beyond it. It does not disclose what identity fields come back, what happens when the user or provider does not exist, or whether provider scoping affects the result — behavior an agent would need for a fetch-by-id call with no output schema.

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?

The single sentence is front-loaded and free of waste, but its brevity here reflects under-specification rather than efficient communication — there is essentially no content beyond the tool name restated.

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?

For a two-required-parameter lookup with no output schema and no annotation detail beyond read-only, the description is too thin. An agent still lacks the meaning of provider_id and any sense of the returned identity shape, both of which the description should supply.

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%, so both required parameters (user_id, provider_id) are undocumented anywhere. The description's phrase 'one user identity' weakly hints that user_id selects a single record, but it says nothing about the meaning of provider_id or whether the two are jointly required.

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?

The description states a specific verb (Read) and resource (one user identity), making clear this is a single-record lookup rather than a list operation. The bracketed [READ] tag and the singular 'one user' implicitly differentiate it from the sibling ztna_users, though that sibling is never named explicitly.

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 guidance on when to use this versus ztna_users (list) or ztna_group_users, nor any mention of prerequisites such as needing a valid provider context. The agent must infer usage purely from the singular wording.

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