PacketMaster

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

pm_wifi_client_analysis

Analyze a Wi-Fi client station by MAC address from a PCAP file to inspect bidirectional traffic and gain deep insights into client behavior.

Instructions

Deep dive on one Wi-Fi client STA by MAC (wlan.addr, bidirectional).

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>",
      "wlan_addr": "<wlan_addr>"
    },
    "name": "pm_wifi_client_analysis"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`file_path`	Yes
`wlan_addr`	Yes
`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

C2.7/5.0

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.