PacketMaster

by Jctechbr

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

Python

Local

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v0.1.0
Disambiguation5/5
All tools have clearly distinct purposes, targeting different network analysis aspects (WiFi vs wired, general vs specific protocols). The quick scan tools are differentiated by domain context, and pm_detect_capture_type helps select the appropriate entry point.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow the 'pm_' prefix with snake_case naming. They use a consistent pattern of pm_[domain]_[action] (e.g., pm_dhcp_analysis, pm_conversations) with occasional verb_noun (pm_extract_fields) but overall very consistent.
Tool Count4/5
22 tools is slightly above the typical ideal range but justified by the breadth of packet analysis (WiFi, wired, diagnostic, protocol-specific). Each tool serves a distinct need without overwhelming the user.
Completeness4/5
The tool set covers essential packet analysis operations: file info, protocol hierarchy, conversations, endpoints, filtering, stream following, anomaly detection, and specialized scans. Minor gaps like HTTP-specific analysis or packet export are missing, but core workflows are well-supported.
Average 2.7/5 across 22 of 22 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 1 commit in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
Add a LICENSE file by following GitHub's guide. Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.
If the license does not appear after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.
MCP servers without a LICENSE cannot be installed.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It fails to disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, side effects, or required permissions. The brief text provides no behavioral context beyond the purpose.
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 description is extremely concise at 4 words, which is acceptable for a simple tool but lacks any structure or additional context. It is not verbose, but also not informative.
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?
Given 2 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema (which reduces need for return value explanation), the description still fails to explain what 'traffic volume' quantifies (bytes, packets?), valid intervals, or file path requirements.
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 coverage is 0%. The description hints at 'time intervals' relating to interval_seconds, but offers no explanation for file_path. The meaning of both parameters remains largely unexplained.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Traffic volume over time intervals' gives a general idea of measuring volume over intervals, but lacks a verb like 'get' or 'calculate', making it somewhat vague. It does not distinguish from sibling tools like pm_latency_summary or pm_protocol_hierarchy.
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 provided on when to use this tool versus its many siblings. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or typical scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description should fully disclose behavioral traits like read-only operation or resource requirements. It only states the output type, omitting whether the tool modifies state, requires permissions, or has side effects. The tshark reference hints at a read operation, but this is not explicit.
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 description is a single sentence, which is concise but lacks structure. It does not include common elements like a brief introduction, parameter details, or output description. While not verbose, it sacrifices completeness for brevity.
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?
Given the tool has one parameter and an output schema, the description should at minimum clarify the input requirement and the nature of the output. It fails to do so, leaving the agent without enough context to use the tool reliably. The output schema exists but is not referenced.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% and there is one required parameter 'file_path'. The description does not explain what file_path should be (e.g., path to a pcap file), its expected format, or constraints. Without this, the agent cannot correctly invoke the tool.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description identifies the tool's output as a 'Protocol distribution tree from tshark -z io,phs.' This gives a specific resource but lacks a clear verb (e.g., 'Generates' or 'Displays') and assumes knowledge of tshark. It differentiates from sibling tools like pm_conversations or pm_endpoints by its unique focus, but the purpose is not immediately obvious to an AI agent.
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 tool versus alternatives such as pm_io_stats or pm_filter_packets. The description does not mention prerequisites (e.g., a valid pcap file) or scenarios where this tool is appropriate, leaving the agent without decision support.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions the type of information but does not state whether the tool is read-only, destructive, or computationally intensive. The agent is left to assume it is safe, but this is not explicit.
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 description is very short (one sentence) and front-loaded, but the conciseness comes at the cost of missing critical details. It is not verbose, but it could be expanded without being overly long.
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?
Given the low parameter count and existence of an output schema, the description should still provide enough context for safe and effective use. It lacks parameter explanations, usage guidelines, and behavioral disclosures, making it incomplete for an agent to use reliably.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%. The description adds no meaning to the file_path or severity parameters. It does not explain what file_path expects (e.g., path to a pcap file) or the possible values for severity (e.g., 'error', 'warning'). The agent cannot infer valid inputs.
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 'Wireshark expert information (errors, warnings, notes, chats)', which clearly identifies the resource and the types of information. The verb is implied (get/retrieve), and it differentiates from siblings like pm_tcp_anomalies by being generic. However, it lacks an explicit action verb.
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 tool versus the many siblings (e.g., pm_tcp_anomalies, pm_protocol_hierarchy). No context about prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must convey behavioral traits. It implies read-only by saying 'return' but does not disclose whether the operation is destructive, requires specific permissions, or if there are performance implications.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While very concise (one sentence), it sacrifices completeness. The description under-specifies the tool's capabilities and parameter usage, making it less helpful than it could be without adding much length.
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?
Despite an output schema existing, the description is insufficient for a tool with 4 parameters and 0% schema coverage. It lacks context about return format, display filter syntax, and how offset/limit affect results.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It does not mention any parameter meaning, format, or constraints (e.g., display filter syntax, offset/limit behavior).
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 clearly states the action ('Return packet summaries') and the filtering mechanism ('matching a display filter'). It distinguishes from siblings like pm_extract_fields or pm_conversations by focusing on packet-level summaries, though it could be more specific about what 'summaries' include.
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 tool versus alternatives like pm_extract_fields or pm_tcp_anomalies. No prerequisites or context provided for using the display filter.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states the functionality but does not disclose whether it is read-only, aggregation details, or any limitations. Minimal behavioral context.
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 description is a single sentence, making it concise. However, it sacrifices content for brevity; additional details on parameters or usage would improve it without significantly increasing length.
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?
Despite the presence of an output schema, the description lacks behavioral context and parameter explanations. For a tool with 3 parameters and no annotations, it is insufficiently complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
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 any parameters (file_path, display_filter, limit). It adds no meaning beyond the schema's type definitions.
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 clearly states it provides per-flow RTT statistics from tcp.analysis.ack_rtt. The verb and resource are specific, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like pm_tcp_anomalies or pm_io_stats by focusing on latency.
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 tool versus alternatives such as pm_tcp_anomalies or pm_troubleshoot_flow. Missing context on prerequisites or typical use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It only says 'deep dive' without explaining what the tool does (e.g., aggregates statistics, shows packet details, modifies anything). The agent cannot infer side effects or resource consumption.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise at one sentence, but it omits essential details. Front-loading is fine, but the sentence is underspecified. It could be more informative without sacrificing length.
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?
Given the complexity (4 params, output schema present) and many sibling tools, the description is too minimal. It doesn't describe the output format even though an output schema exists, and it lacks context on how this tool fits with others like pm_troubleshoot_quick_scan.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the description adds no information about parameters beyond their names and types. For example, file_path is required but unexplained; port is optional with default null but no guidance on usage. The description mentions 'optional port' but doesn't clarify its role.
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 uses 'Deep dive on traffic between two IP addresses (optional port)' which clearly indicates the tool analyzes traffic flows between two endpoints. This distinguishes it from siblings like DNS analysis or TCP anomalies, but 'deep dive' is slightly vague, missing an action verb like 'analyze'.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies use for traffic between two IPs, but there's no mention of prerequisites, when not to use, or why it's preferred over similar tools like pm_follow_stream or pm_tcp_anomalies.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description must carry full burden. Only lists components without explaining behavior like side effects, aggregation of results, or potential performance implications. Lacks critical transparency for a composite action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Very concise single sentence, but under-specified for a composite tool. Should expand to include parameter info, usage context, and behavioral notes.
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?
Although output schema exists, the description omits crucial context like what 'composite' means, the order of operations, or any caveats. Incomplete for a multi-step tool with no annotations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, yet the description provides no explanation for any parameter. file_path and compute_hash are left completely undocumented, forcing the agent to infer meaning.
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?
Description clearly states it is a composite triage combining file info, expert, top conversations, TCP anomalies, and protocol hierarchy. This distinguishes it from individual sibling tools, but lacks an explicit action verb like 'run' or 'perform'.
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 composite tool versus its siblings, especially pm_troubleshoot_flow which may have similar purpose. No context for ideal use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It mentions the symptoms detected but omits behavioral traits such as read-only nature, required permissions, output format, or limitations. The tool likely reads packet data, but this is not confirmed.
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?
The description is a single sentence with no waste. It front-loads the core purpose immediately. Could benefit from brief parameter hints, but current length is reasonable.
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?
Given the complex domain (packet analysis) and presence of many sibling tools, the description is too minimal. It lacks parameter semantics and usage context, making it incomplete despite having an output schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, yet the description does not explain either parameter (file_path, display_filter). The agent cannot infer their roles or constraints from the description alone.
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 clearly states the tool's function: detecting one-sided capture symptoms like SYN without ACK, lost segments, and ICMP-in-tunnel. It uses a specific verb and resource, and the examples help distinguish its focus from general packet analysis tools.
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 is provided on when to use this tool versus siblings like pm_tcp_anomalies or pm_expert_info. The description implies it is for asymmetric capture scenarios but does not explicitly state usage context or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must provide behavioral context. It fails to disclose that the tool is read-only, what the output contains, or any limitations. Minimal information beyond the name.
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 description is a single sentence, very concise, but at the cost of completeness. It could be expanded to include more context without losing conciseness.
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?
Despite having an output schema, the description omits crucial context like what 'top names' means, how sample_limit works, and typical use cases. Many gaps remain.
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 coverage is 0%, so the description should explain parameters. It only mentions 'optional client IP' for ip_address, leaving file_path and sample_limit unexplained. Adds little value over schema structure.
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 clearly indicates DNS analysis, top names, and failure samples, differentiating it from sibling tools focused on other protocols. However, it lacks a strong verb like 'analyze' and could be more explicit.
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 tool versus alternatives like pm_dhcp_analysis or pm_tcp_anomalies. The description does not specify use cases or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It states it lists top IP endpoints by traffic volume but does not specify what 'traffic volume' means (e.g., bytes, packets), whether it is read-only, or any nuances like data source or filtering.
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?
The description is a single sentence with no filler. However, it is overly terse and sacrifices clarity for brevity.
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?
Despite having an output schema, the description lacks details on how to use file_path, the meaning of 'top', and the units of traffic volume. For a tool with two parameters, more context is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has two parameters (file_path, limit) but the description provides no explanation of their purpose or syntax. With 0% schema description coverage, this is a critical gap.
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 clearly identifies the resource (IP endpoints) and the action (listing top by traffic volume). It is distinct from sibling tools which focus on specific protocols or analyses.
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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like pm_protocol_hierarchy or pm_filter_packets. The context signals show many similar analysis tools but no differentiation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states extraction with pagination, omitting details like whether it modifies data, performance impact, or error conditions. This is insufficient for an agent to predict behavior.
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 description is a single concise sentence with no waste, but it lacks structure and misses important details. It is under-specified rather than efficiently informative.
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?
Given the tool has 5 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema, the description is far from complete. It does not explain the output format, pagination behavior, or how display_filter works, leaving significant gaps for the agent.
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 coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It mentions 'specific tshark fields' and 'pagination,' which weakly relate to 'fields' and 'offset'/'limit,' but does not define file_path, display_filter, or clarify the values. The description adds minimal meaning beyond the bare schema.
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 clearly states the tool extracts specific tshark fields with pagination, using a specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like pm_filter_packets or pm_file_info, which might have overlapping functionality.
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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The description gives no context for selection among siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It says 'Count and sample' but does not indicate whether it modifies data, requires special permissions, or has any side effects. The read-only nature is unclear.
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?
Extremely concise (one sentence) but omits essential parameter information. While no fluff, it fails to provide necessary details beyond the core function.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having an output schema, the description is insufficient for a tool with 3 undocumented parameters. It lacks instructions on required file_path, optional filter, and sample_limit, making it incomplete for correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% and the description does not mention parameters (file_path, display_filter, sample_limit) at all. The AI agent must guess their meaning and usage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states the verb 'Count and sample' and the specific resource 'TCP anomalies', listing examples (retrans, dup ACK, zero window, OOO, RST), which distinguishes it from sibling tools that cover other analysis areas.
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 tool vs. alternatives like pm_latency_summary or pm_troubleshoot_flow. Does not mention prerequisites or scenarios where it is or is not appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Only states 'deep dive' and 'bidirectional' – does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, what side effects exist, or any limitations. Does not mention sample_limit behavior or potential performance impact.
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?
Description is a single sentence, concise and front-loaded with key information. No filler. However, it could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness.
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?
Given the complexity of Wi-Fi client analysis (deep dive), the description is too minimal. It does not describe the output, analysis scope, or sample usage. Output schema exists but description should still provide context. Incomplete for a 'deep dive' tool.
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 description must compensate. It explains wlan_addr as 'MAC (wlan.addr, bidirectional)' which adds meaning, but file_path and sample_limit are not explained. For a tool with three parameters, only one gets partial clarification.
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?
Description states 'Deep dive on one Wi-Fi client STA by MAC (wlan.addr, bidirectional)' which clearly identifies the tool's purpose: analyzing a specific Wi-Fi client using its MAC address. The verb 'deep dive' is somewhat vague but combined with 'one Wi-Fi client STA' it's clear. Distinguishes from siblings like pm_wifi_quick_scan and pm_wifi_roaming_analysis.
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 tool versus alternatives. Siblings include other Wi-Fi analysis tools, but description does not mention when to prefer this over pm_wifi_quick_scan or pm_wifi_roaming_analysis.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. However, it only lists the types of events included in the timeline (reassoc, neighbor reports, etc.) without disclosing whether the tool is read-only, modifies state, requires special permissions, or has limitations. The description does not compensate for the lack of annotations.
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 description is extremely concise at 13 words, which earns its place but sacrifices necessary detail. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, but for a tool with multiple parameters and no annotations, conciseness becomes under-specification. A balance is required; this is too minimal.
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?
Given the tool has 3 parameters (2 required) and no parameter descriptions or annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not mention the output schema or explain the return value, nor does it provide context on when to set sample_limit. For a moderately complex tool like roaming timeline analysis, more context is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% (no parameter descriptions). The description does not explain any of the three parameters: file_path, wlan_addr, sample_limit. The user has no clue what values to provide for wlan_addr or sample_limit. Even though an output schema exists, the description adds zero value to understanding parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly defines a specific verb+resource: it provides a timeline of 802.11k/v roaming events including reassoc, neighbor reports, BSS transition, and deauth. This distinguishes it from siblings like pm_wifi_client_analysis (which likely focuses on client details) and pm_wifi_quick_scan (a broader scan). The specification of events makes the purpose concrete and unambiguous.
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 tool versus alternatives. The tool name and description imply it's for WiFi roaming analysis, but there is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusion criteria. Sibling tools like pm_wifi_client_analysis or pm_troubleshoot_quick_scan could overlap; the description fails to clarify when each is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure, but it only states the function. No mention of side effects, access requirements, or state changes. For a detection tool, it is likely read-only but not confirmed.
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?
The description is one sentence with no wasted words, front-loading the key information. However, it is slightly under-specified, but within conciseness it is efficient.
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?
Given the presence of an output schema, return values are not needed, but the description lacks sufficient context for parameter semantics, usage guidelines, and behavioral traits, making it incomplete for effective tool selection and invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage and the description adds no meaning to the single parameter 'file_path'. It does not explain what the file path should point to (e.g., a pcap file) or any constraints.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Detect' and the resource 'wlan vs ethernet capture', and specifies the outcome 'recommend entry-point tool'. This is a specific and unique function among siblings, which are mostly analysis tools rather than detection.
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?
The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like pm_wifi_quick_scan or pm_wired_quick_scan. It lacks context on prerequisites or use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions truncated and redacted by default, but does not state whether the operation is read-only, whether it modifies anything, or any side effects. The term 'follow' is ambiguous.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One sentence, front-loaded with the core purpose and key default behaviors. No unnecessary words.
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 5 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and no annotations, the description is too brief. It omits what 'follow' means, how to interpret results, and any information about the output schema that exists. More detail is needed for an agent to use this tool correctly.
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 only hints at max_bytes and redact via 'truncated, redacted by default'. file_path, stream_type, and stream_index are not explained. The description does not adequately compensate for the missing parameter descriptions.
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 clearly states the tool follows a TCP/UDP/HTTP/TLS stream, with specific default behaviors (truncated, redacted). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like pm_troubleshoot_flow, which may also deal with streams.
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 tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, when not to use it, or what distinguishes it from other stream or troubleshooting tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only lists protocol domains. It does not state whether the tool is read-only, requires special permissions, or has any side effects. This leaves the agent uncertain about safety and expected behavior.
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?
The description is a single concise sentence with no wasted words. However, it lacks structure (e.g., separate sections for purpose and parameters), which could improve readability.
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?
Given the complexity of a multi-protocol triage tool and the presence of two undocumented parameters, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns (though output schema exists) nor how to use the parameters, leaving significant gaps for the agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
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 mention either parameter. The agent receives no guidance on the meaning of 'file_path' (e.g., format, type) or 'compute_hash' (purpose, effect). This severely limits correct usage.
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 clearly lists the specific protocol areas covered (DHCP, DNS, ICMP, L2 infra, VLAN, TCP anomalies, asymmetric hints) for wired/EPC triage, which distinguishes it from siblings like pm_wifi_quick_scan or pm_dhcp_analysis. However, it lacks a strong verb like 'analyzes' or 'scans', slightly reducing clarity.
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?
The description implies use for initial wired/EPC triage across multiple protocols but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool instead of more specialized siblings (e.g., pm_dhcp_analysis). No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It does not state that the tool is read-only, reads a file, or any side effects. The output schema exists but the description gives no behavioral context.
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?
Single sentence, no unnecessary words, and the key functionality is front-loaded. However, it could be slightly more informative without becoming verbose.
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 3 parameters, a required file_path, and an expected output, the description is too minimal. It omits that the tool analyzes capture files, the output structure, and the ordering implied by 'top'. An output schema exists but is not leveraged in the description.
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%, yet the description only hints at conv_type values via the parentheses '(ip, tcp, or udp)'. file_path and limit are not explained at all, leaving the agent to infer meaning from names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Top conversations by bytes' with explicit protocol types (ip, tcp, udp), providing a specific verb-resource pair that distinguishes it from sibling tools like pm_troubleshoot_flow or pm_follow_stream.
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 tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention conditions, prerequisites, or comparisons with siblings such as pm_io_stats or pm_protocol_hierarchy.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions 'stuck-pattern detection' but does not explain what this entails, whether the tool is read-only, requires specific permissions, or what side effects occur. The output schema exists but is not referenced.
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?
The description is a single sentence of 9 words, front-loading the key purpose. It is efficiently concise, though it sacrifices completeness for brevity.
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?
Given 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and 3 parameters, the description is too minimal. It does not explain the output (though an output schema exists), usage prerequisites, or the meaning of 'stuck-pattern detection'. The tool's full behavior is under-specified.
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%, yet the description only hints at the mac_address parameter via 'optional STA MAC'. The required file_path and sample_limit parameters are not described, leaving the agent without meaning beyond the schema structure.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'DHCP transaction analysis' as the specific verb+resource, and adds 'stuck-pattern detection (optional STA MAC)' which differentiates it from sibling tools like pm_dns_analysis or pm_tcp_anomalies.
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 tool versus alternatives such as pm_conversations or pm_troubleshoot_flow. The description implies DHCP focus but does not explicitly state usage context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears full burden. It mentions 'triage' and analysis topics but does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the tool is read-only, resource-intensive, or what the output format is. It fails to adequately compensate for the lack of annotations.
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?
The description is a single, focused sentence that front-loads key information. It is concise and efficient, but its brevity comes at the cost of omitting parameter details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that an output schema exists, the description need not explain return values. However, it still leaves gaps: no parameter documentation, no usage context, and no behavioral details. It is minimally adequate for a simple tool but not complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
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 mention either parameter (file_path, rssi_threshold). It adds no meaning beyond the schema, leaving the AI agent to guess their purpose.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it's for 802.11 monitor-mode triage, listing specific analysis areas (retries, mgmt frames, security, roaming, top BSSIDs). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like pm_wired_quick_scan (wired) and pm_wifi_roaming_analysis (roaming-specific).
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?
The description implies usage for quick Wi-Fi triage but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statements are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It only mentions returning metadata and optionally computing a hash, omitting details like whether the tool modifies anything, performance implications, or dependency on file access permissions.
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?
The description is a single concise sentence without superfluous words. It could be improved by adding structure, but it effectively communicates the core functionality.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that an output schema exists (though not provided), the description partially defines return values. However, with many sibling tools, more context on when to choose this tool would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds some meaning: it implies file_path is a PCAP file path and compute_hash relates to SHA-256. However, it doesn't specify allowed file sources or hash computation overhead.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool returns capinfos metadata and optionally a SHA-256 hash for a PCAP file. It uses specific verbs and resources, distinguishing it from sibling tools like pm_detect_capture_type or pm_filter_packets.
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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like pm_detect_capture_type or pm_filter_packets. There is no mention of prerequisites or scenarios where this tool is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It only states 'verify installation and configuration' without explaining what that entails (e.g., error handling, return format, side effects). The lack of detail leaves the agent guessing about the tool's exact behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, extremely concise and to the point. Every word is necessary, and there is no verbosity or redundancy. It is well-structured for quick comprehension.
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?
Given that an output schema exists, the description could be more detailed about what the verification entails and how to interpret results. It lacks context on when to invoke this tool (e.g., before other analyses) and does not clarify the nature of the output. The minimal description is insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's role.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter information, and it correctly provides no extraneous details. It does not detract from the schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Verify' and the resource 'tshark/capinfos installation and configuration'. It distinctly sets this tool apart from sibling tools that analyze packet captures, making its purpose unambiguous.
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?
The description implies this is a prerequisite check for packet analysis tools, but it does not explicitly state when to use it or mention alternatives. Users must infer that it should be run before other pm_* tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![PacketMaster MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Jctechbr/PacketMaster/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Jctechbr/PacketMaster)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![PacketMaster MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Jctechbr/PacketMaster/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Jctechbr/PacketMaster)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/Jctechbr/PacketMaster'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server