Wireshark MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only partially discloses behavior. It mentions returning 'newline-separated list of unique IPs or JSON error', which covers output format and error handling. However, it lacks details on performance (e.g., large file handling), side effects, or authentication needs. The description doesn't contradict annotations (none exist), but is incomplete for a tool processing potentially large network captures.

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 description is front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by structured sections for Args, Returns, and Example. Each sentence earns its place: the first states the goal, subsequent lines document parameters and output efficiently. No redundant or verbose language is present.

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?

Given 2 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, but an output schema exists (implied by 'Returns' section), the description is reasonably complete. It covers purpose, parameters, and output format. However, for a tool that processes network data, additional context on file size limits or error scenarios would enhance completeness, though the output schema may handle some of this.

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%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by explaining the 'type' parameter ('IP type to extract - 'src', 'dst', or 'both'') and implies 'pcap_file' is the capture file via the example. However, it doesn't detail file format requirements or path handling for 'pcap_file'. Since there are only 2 parameters and the description clarifies the enum-like 'type', it scores above baseline but not perfectly.

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 clearly states the specific action ('List all unique IP addresses in capture') with the resource ('capture'), distinguishing it from siblings like wireshark_stats_endpoints or wireshark_stats_conversations that provide different statistical analyses. The verb 'list' and resource 'IP addresses' are precise and unambiguous.

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 description implies usage for extracting IP addresses from packet captures, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like wireshark_stats_endpoints (which might include IP statistics) or wireshark_extract_fields (which could extract arbitrary fields). The 'Convenience' tag hints at a simpler alternative, but lacks clear when/when-not directives.

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