Runs Snort's rule profiler on a packet capture to rank rules by processing time, showing checks, matches, and time for performance tuning.
Run the rules with Snort's rule profiler and return the slowest rules with checks, matches and time. Example: profile_rules(pcap_id="e-0001", rules_id="e-0002", top=10)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| top | No | ||
| pcap_id | Yes | ||
| rules_id | No | ||
| rules_text | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It does disclose the return fields (checks, matches, time) and identifies the operation as a profiling run, but it doesn't mention cost, whether the rules source is required, or anything about error conditions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two compact sentences with a concrete call example, front-loading the action and the return shape. The example repeats parameter names visible in the schema, but it usefully signals the id format (e-0001).
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a 4-parameter tool with no annotations, no output schema and zero schema coverage, the description covers the purpose and the return fields but omits how to supply rules (rules_id vs rules_text), the meaning of top, and any usage constraints.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only illustrates pcap_id, rules_id and top in the example. The fourth parameter rules_text, the likely mutual exclusivity between rules_id and rules_text, and the default of top=20 are all left unexplained.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb and resource: run Snort's rule profiler on rules and return the slowest rules with checks, matches and time. That distinguishes it from sibling tools like validate_rules or run_pcap, though no sibling is named explicitly.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The stated output (slowest rules) implies the use case of finding performance hotspots, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or pointer to alternatives such as suggest_tuning_targets or test_tuning, which would help the agent choose.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.