PacketMaster

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

pm_troubleshoot_flow

Analyze network traffic between two IP addresses in a PCAP file to troubleshoot connectivity issues. Optionally specify a port to filter.

Instructions

Deep dive on traffic between two IP addresses (optional port).

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>",
      "ip_a": "<ip_a>",
      "ip_b": "<ip_b>"
    },
    "name": "pm_troubleshoot_flow"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`file_path`	Yes
`ip_a`	Yes
`ip_b`	Yes
`port`	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?

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.