PacketMaster

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

pm_io_stats

Analyze traffic volume over time intervals from PCAP files. Specify the file path and interval duration to get packet counts per interval.

Instructions

Traffic volume over time intervals.

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_io_stats"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`file_path`	Yes
`interval_seconds`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jun 10, 2026

TDQS

C2.2/5.0

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.