PacketMaster

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

pm_wired_quick_scan

Analyze PCAP files to detect DHCP, DNS, ICMP, VLAN, and TCP anomalies, plus asymmetric routing hints for wired network triage.

Instructions

Wired/EPC triage: DHCP, DNS, ICMP, L2 infra, VLAN, TCP anomalies, asymmetric hints.

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_wired_quick_scan"
  }
}

Input Schema

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

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jun 10, 2026

TDQS

C2.8/5.0

Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only lists protocol domains. It does not state whether the tool is read-only, requires special permissions, or has any side effects. This leaves the agent uncertain about safety and expected behavior.

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?

The description is a single concise sentence with no wasted words. However, it lacks structure (e.g., separate sections for purpose and parameters), which could improve readability.

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 a multi-protocol triage tool and the presence of two undocumented parameters, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns (though output schema exists) nor how to use the parameters, leaving significant gaps for the agent.

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% and the description does not mention either parameter. The agent receives no guidance on the meaning of 'file_path' (e.g., format, type) or 'compute_hash' (purpose, effect). This severely limits correct usage.

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 lists the specific protocol areas covered (DHCP, DNS, ICMP, L2 infra, VLAN, TCP anomalies, asymmetric hints) for wired/EPC triage, which distinguishes it from siblings like pm_wifi_quick_scan or pm_dhcp_analysis. However, it lacks a strong verb like 'analyzes' or 'scans', slightly reducing clarity.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies use for initial wired/EPC triage across multiple protocols but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool instead of more specialized siblings (e.g., pm_dhcp_analysis). No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.