PacketMaster

by Jctechbr

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Local

pm_filter_packets

Filter network packets from a PCAP file using a display filter to retrieve matching packet summaries for analysis.

Instructions

Return packet summaries matching a display filter.

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>",
      "display_filter": "<display_filter>"
    },
    "name": "pm_filter_packets"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`file_path`	Yes
`display_filter`	Yes
`offset`	No
`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

C2.4/5.0

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.