PacketMaster

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

pm_dns_analysis

Analyze DNS queries and responses from PCAP files. Identify top queried names and failure samples, with optional filtering by client IP.

Instructions

DNS query/response analysis, top names, and failure samples (optional client IP).

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": {
      "file_path": "<file_path>"
    },
    "name": "pm_dns_analysis"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`file_path`	Yes
`ip_address`	No
`sample_limit`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jun 10, 2026

TDQS

C2.6/5.0

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.