Symantec ZTNA AIops

ztna_users

Read-only

Search users by identity provider with cursor-based pagination and optional text filtering to retrieve identity records.

Instructions

[READ] Search users with an opaque provider cursor.

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>"
    },
    "name": "ztna_users"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No
`filter_text`	No
`page_offset`	No
`provider_id`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 7, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

readOnlyHint=true already declares the safety profile, and '[READ]' largely restates it. The only additional behavioral clue is 'opaque provider cursor,' which does not explain how pagination works, where the cursor comes from, or what the search returns.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

It is one front-loaded sentence with no filler, so it is structurally efficient. However, '[READ]' duplicates the readOnlyHint annotation and 'opaque' adds jargon without useful detail.

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 tool with four parameters, one required, zero schema descriptions, and no output schema, the definition is too sparse to support confident invocation. It omits required provider_id semantics, filter behavior, limit behavior, and cursor mechanics.

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 the description does not explain provider_id, limit, filter_text, or page_offset. 'provider cursor' hints at pagination but does not map clearly to page_offset or compensate for the undocumented required provider_id.

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, 'Search,' and resource, 'users,' and marks the operation read-only, so the basic purpose is clear. It does not explicitly distinguish this list/search tool from the singular sibling ztna_user, leaving sibling differentiation implied by plural naming.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It implies use for searching or listing users rather than fetching a single user, but gives no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative such as ztna_user. No prerequisites are stated beyond what the schema implies.

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