Wireshark MCP

by bx33661

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

Python

Local

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v2.0.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool targets a distinct operation—capture, stats, detection, extraction, dissection, etc.—with clear descriptions. Even security detection tools (e.g., port scan vs. ARP spoofing) are differentiated by specific anomaly types, minimizing confusion.
Naming Consistency4/5
Most tools follow the pattern `wireshark_<action>_<target>` (e.g., `wireshark_get_packet_list`, `wireshark_detect_exfiltration`). Minor deviations include `wireshark_quick_analysis` (adjective_noun) and the deprecated `wireshark_read_packets` versus `wireshark_get_packet_list`, but overall the convention is consistent.
Tool Count2/5
With 51 tools, the set is far beyond the typical well-scoped range (3–15). While Wireshark is complex and each tool serves a niche, the sheer number makes the surface feel heavy and can overwhelm agents, justifying a 'too many' assessment.
Completeness5/5
The tool set comprehensively covers the Wireshark domain: capture, file operations, editing, statistics (protocol hierarchy, endpoints, conversations, I/O graph), security analysis (port scan, exfiltration, ARP spoofing, DNS tunnel, DoS), forensics (extract objects, credentials, fingerprints), TLS decryption, YARA scanning, and more. No obvious gaps are present.
Average 3.2/5 across 51 of 51 tools scored. Lowest: 1.9/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- 1 of 1 community issues answered or closed in the last 6 months
- 9 commits in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on July 28, 2026
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description claims the tool 'overrides' preferences, implying a write operation, but annotations set readOnlyHint=true, contradicting the description. The description does not clarify that changes are temporary or only affect the current session, nor does it disclose any side effects.
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 short and front-loaded, but it sacrifices necessary detail. While concise, it fails to convey key information, making it underinformative.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 5 parameters, no output schema, and a potentially destructive action (overriding preferences), the description is far too minimal. It does not explain return values, side effects, or usage constraints.
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 coverage is 0% and the description does not explain any parameters beyond a brief example. The prefs format is shown but not formally defined; other parameters (limit, fields, pcap_file, display_filter) are completely ignored.
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 states 'Protocol preference overrides' and provides an example, indicating the tool sets dissection preferences. However, it lacks a clear verb (e.g., 'set') and does not distinguish it from similar tools like decode_as or decrypt_tls.
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 is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., wireshark_decode_as). There is no context about prerequisites or exclusion criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true. The description adds no behavioral details beyond a generic 'showing distribution', e.g., no mention of whether it modifies anything or any side effects.
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?
Extremely concise (one sentence) but lacks substantive information. Could be improved without losing brevity.
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?
No output schema exists, and the description offers no explanation of the return format (e.g., list of protocols with percentages or counts). Incomplete for a single-parameter tool.
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?
The only parameter, pcap_file, is not described in the schema or description. The description provides no meaning about how to specify the capture file (path, content, format).
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 states it shows protocol hierarchy statistics with distribution, but it's vague and doesn't differentiate from sibling stats tools like wireshark_stats_endpoints or wireshark_stats_conversations.
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 among the many statistical tools in the sibling list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true. The description does not elaborate on the behavior (e.g., overwriting output file, requiring both start and stop times). It adds no behavioral context beyond the annotation.
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 concise (one sentence) but at the cost of missing essential information. It is front-loaded but incomplete.
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?
With 4 parameters, no output schema, and minimal description, the tool lacks necessary context. The description does not explain default behavior when start_time/stop_time are empty, nor the effect of output file overwriting.
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%. The description mentions 'Times in editcap format' but does not explain the format for start_time or stop_time, nor the meaning of input_file/output_file. No parameter semantics are clarified.
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 states the tool trims a capture to a timestamp window using editcap format. While it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like editcap_split or editcap_time_shift, the action of trimming to a time window is specific enough.
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, nor any prerequisites. The description is purely declarative without contextual usage advice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description adds no extra behavioral context beyond stating the purpose. It does not disclose behavior like return format, pagination, or what happens on no match. With annotations covering the safety profile, the description should at least mention non-obvious traits.
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 one sentence, which is efficient but under-specified. It earns its place by stating the core purpose, but omits critical details. Conciseness should not come at the cost of completeness, so a midpoint score is appropriate.
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 tool has 5 parameters (including two enums), no output schema, and many sibling tools, the description is incomplete. It does not address how parameters interact, supported search types, or scope values, 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 only implies the purpose of match_pattern. It fails to explain the other four parameters (pcap_file, limit, scope, search_type), including their defaults and enums. For a tool with 5 parameters, the description is severely lacking.
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 'Find packets by content' clearly states the action (find) and resource (packets) with a specific method (by content). It distinguishes from siblings like wireshark_get_packet_list (which likely just lists without search) and wireshark_read_packets (raw reading). However, it doesn't explicitly mention the pcap file context or contrast with other search-like tools, so not a perfect 5.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as wireshark_get_packet_list or wireshark_detect_port_scan. It lacks any when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or prerequisite information, leaving the agent without decision support.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true, but the description only describes a read-only 'scan' operation. This is a contradiction. No additional behavioral context (e.g., files modified, permissions needed) is provided.
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 short and front-loaded with a '[Security]' tag, but it is somewhat cryptic and could benefit from clearer structure. It packs information into a few phrases, but some sentences are missing.
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?
With 3 parameters and no output schema, the description should clarify input prerequisites and return values. It fails to mention that exported objects must exist first or what the scan results look like, leaving significant gaps.
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 adds meaning for the 'protocol' parameter by listing expected values (http|smb|tftp) but does not explain 'pcap_file' or 'dest_dir' beyond their existence in the schema.
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 states 'YARA scan exported files' with specific detection targets (malware, webshells, shellcode) and protocols (http|smb|tftp). This clearly identifies the verb and resource, and the security focus differentiates it from many sibling tools.
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 like wireshark_detect_exfiltration or wireshark_scan_file_signatures. No prerequisites (e.g., exported files) 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.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare `readOnlyHint: true`, indicating safe read-only behavior. The description adds minimal extra context: it identifies the tool as providing statistics but does not disclose any side effects, dependencies, or what happens on failure. No contradictions with annotations.
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 sentence with no extraneous words. It is front-loaded with the key concept ('Service response time statistics'). However, at the cost of comprehensiveness, it does not elaborate on output or usage.
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 low schema coverage, no output schema, and the presence of many sibling tools, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what the statistical output contains (e.g., format, fields) or how the protocol filter affects results. A more complete description would at least mention return values or provide an example.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% (no parameter descriptions in schema), so the description must fill the gap. It mentions the `protocol` parameter with example values, which adds some meaning beyond the schema (which only shows type and default). However, it does not describe the required `pcap_file` parameter, leaving its semantics entirely to the agent's inference. A more complete description would explain both parameters.
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 states it provides 'service response time statistics' and lists example protocols, but it does not explain what specific statistics are computed (e.g., average, min, max). The abbreviation 'SRT' is not expanded, which may confuse agents. While it differentiates from sibling stats tools by focusing on response time, the lack of detail reduces clarity.
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 alternative stats tools like `wireshark_stats_io_graph` or `wireshark_stats_protocol_hierarchy`. The description does not mention prerequisites, limitations, or context where this tool is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, so the description's 'Reassemble stream' aligns with that. The description does not add any additional behavioral details beyond what annotations provide, but there is no contradiction.
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?
The description is extremely brief (one line) and lacks structure. The bracketed '[Stream]' prefix is unclear. It does not effectively front-load key information; it is under-specified rather than concise.
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 (7 parameters, no output schema) and the minimal annotation coverage (only readOnlyHint), the description is incomplete. It does not explain required inputs, pagination mechanism, or how results are returned. Significant gaps remain for an agent to invoke correctly.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It only lists possible values for 'protocol' and 'output_mode' without explanation, and omits the other 5 parameters entirely (pcap_file, stream_index, limit_lines, offset_lines, search_content). This is insufficient to clarify parameter 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 states 'Reassemble stream with pagination', which gives a clear verb and resource. It indicates the tool reassembles network streams and supports pagination. However, it lacks context to differentiate it from sibling tools like wireshark_flow_graph, and the term 'stream' could be ambiguous.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as wireshark_get_packet_list or wireshark_search_packets. No prerequisites, use cases, or conditions are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark readOnlyHint=true, consistent with an analysis tool. Description adds no additional behavioral traits (e.g., performance impact, data volume). It does not contradict annotations, but provides minimal extra context beyond what annotations convey.
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?
Single sentence listing outputs is fairly concise, but the list is somewhat lengthy. Overall proportion seems appropriate for the tool's purpose.
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?
Tool has no output schema, low schema coverage, and many siblings. Description is too brief to equip an agent with full understanding of usage, output expectations, or how this differs from other tools. Incomplete for a tool that appears to be an aggregate analysis.
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?
Input schema has one parameter 'pcap_file' with 0% coverage in description. The description does not explain the parameter beyond the schema's bare definition. With low schema coverage, the description fails to compensate by adding meaning or format details.
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 specifies verb 'quick analysis' on 'pcap file' and lists outputs (file info, protocols, top talkers, conversations, hostnames, anomalies), indicating a comprehensive overview. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like wireshark_get_file_info or wireshark_stats_*, so clarity is good but not excellent.
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. The description labels it as 'One-call traffic overview', implying an initial summary, but lacks explicit context or exclusions regarding when to use other specific tools like wireshark_stats_* or wireshark_detect_*.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, and the description does not contradict that. It adds minimal behavioral context beyond the example, such as how decode rules affect interpretation.
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 but lacks structure and completeness. It front-loads the category but the single sentence does not efficiently convey all necessary information.
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?
For a tool with 5 parameters, no output schema, and many siblings, the description is far too brief. It fails to explain prerequisites, return values, or typical use cases.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate but only gives a hint about decode_rules format. Other parameters (limit, fields, pcap_file, display_filter) are left unexplained.
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 states it is for dissection and decode-as for non-standard ports with an example. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from similar dissection tools among siblings.
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 like wireshark_analyze_protocol or wireshark_decrypt_tls. The description lacks any context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
While annotations indicate destructiveHint=true, the description does not explain key behavioral details, such as whether the shift is positive or negative, or that a new output file is created. It adds minimal value beyond the annotation.
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 is so brief that it sacrifices clarity, preventing a higher score.
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?
For a tool with no output schema and only three parameters, the description should at least clarify the direction of the shift and that it creates an output file. The current minimal description leaves the agent uncertain about the tool's full behavior.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage and no parameter descriptions in the text, the description fails to add meaning to the input schema. The term 'seconds' is mentioned but not explained (e.g., sign, bounds, or effect on timestamps).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Shift') and the resource ('packet timestamps') with a specific modifier ('by a relative number of seconds'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like wireshark_editcap_split or wireshark_editcap_trim.
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?
The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives (e.g., other editcap tools). It only states the operation, leaving the agent to infer the context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, and the description confirms it returns a packet list. It adds some behavioral context by specifying the TSV output format and custom_columns option, but does not discuss limit/offset behavior or potential errors. With annotations covering the safety profile, the description provides modest additional insight.
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 very short, which is concise but lacks structured details. It uses a summary format with brackets and abbreviations, which may be unclear. While not verbose, it could be better organized with clear sentences.
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?
With no output schema, the description should fully explain return values and parameter effects. It specifies the TSV columns but not the impact of limit, offset, or display_filter. For a 5-parameter tool with no parameter descriptions, the description is incomplete.
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 the description must explain parameters. It only briefly mentions custom_columns. The purpose of limit, offset, pcap_file, and display_filter are not explained. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema's parameter names and types.
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 states it returns a packet list with specific columns (TSV format). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_packet_details by focusing on the top pane list. However, it does not explicitly state that the list is for a given pcap file, which is implied by the required parameter.
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 vs alternatives such as wireshark_get_packet_details, wireshark_read_packets, or wireshark_quick_analysis. The description lacks context for choosing this tool over others.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true. The description adds context about the types of anomalies detected (retransmissions, errors, etc.) but does not disclose other behavioral aspects such as performance impact or file requirements. With annotations present, this is adequate but minimal.
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 very short and front-loaded with a label. However, it lacks crucial details about parameters and output, making it incomplete. It is concise but at the expense of clarity.
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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, safe read operation), the description is insufficient. It does not describe the output format or provide any example. An agent would need to infer what 'expert info' returns, which affects usability.
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%, and the tool description does not explain the single required parameter 'pcap_file'. While the parameter name is self-explanatory, the description should explicitly state it is the packet capture file to analyze. This omission leaves ambiguity for unfamiliar agents.
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 states it is about 'Expert Info' for automatic anomaly detection and lists specific anomalies (retransmissions, errors, etc.). It distinguishes from sibling detection tools by referencing the Wireshark expert info feature, though it does not explicitly contrast with tools like wireshark_detect_protocol_anomalies.
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. The description implies it provides automatic expert info but does not specify appropriate contexts, prerequisites, or cases where other detection tools would be more suitable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, so the tool is known to modify data. The description adds minimal behavioral detail: it mentions splitting into multiple files but does not explain whether the original file is preserved, how output files are named, or behavior when both packets_per_file and seconds_per_file are set.
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 a single short sentence, which is concise and front-loaded. However, it lacks necessary detail; brevity here comes at the expense of completeness.
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 tool's complexity of splitting a capture file into multiple files, the absence of output schema and parameter descriptions leaves an agent without sufficient context to correctly invoke the tool, especially regarding conflict resolution when both splitting criteria are provided.
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%, and the description does not explain any parameter beyond their names. While 'by packet count or time interval' loosely hints at packets_per_file and seconds_per_file, it fails to clarify default behavior, precedence when both are non-zero, or naming conventions for output files.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'split' and the resource 'capture' (packet capture files), and specifies the two modes: by packet count or time interval. This effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like merge, trim, deduplicate, and time_shift.
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 is provided on when to use splitting versus alternatives such as merge_pcaps, editcap_trim, or editcap_deduplicate. There is no indication of which mode (packet count vs. time interval) is appropriate for different scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the destructiveHint annotation. Does not disclose whether output file will be overwritten, required file permissions, or error handling.
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?
Extremely concise—one sentence plus a fragment. Every word earns its place, but structure could be improved (e.g., separating parameter details into a list).
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?
No output schema and limited parameter documentation. Missing important context: file format requirements, size limits, behavior if input files don't exist, and typical use cases.
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?
Input_files parameter gets partial description ('comma-separated paths') but output_file is entirely unexplained. With 0% schema coverage, description should compensate more for the missing parameter semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Merge multiple capture files into one' is a clear, specific verb+resource statement that distinctly identifies the tool's function compared to sibling tools like wireshark_editcap_split.
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 instead of alternatives or prerequisites. The description only provides parameter format ('comma-separated paths') without context for usage decisions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, so the tool is read-only. The description adds context about using an SSLKEYLOGFILE-format keylog file, but does not disclose what happens on failure or any side effects, which is acceptable given the annotation.
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?
One sentence with a [TLS] prefix for domain context. Efficient and front-loaded, though could be slightly expanded for clarity.
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?
No output schema and minimal parameter descriptions. The description does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., success/failure, details), error conditions, or input format specifics beyond the keylog hint. Incomplete for a verification 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 the description must add meaning. It clarifies that keylog_file is an SSLKEYLOGFILE-format file, but pcap_file receives no extra context beyond being a string. This is insufficient for full semantic understanding.
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 specifies the action (verify) and resource (TLS decryption) with the method (SSLKEYLOGFILE-format keylog file), distinguishing it from similar sibling 'wireshark_decrypt_tls' by implying verification rather than decryption.
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 like 'wireshark_decrypt_tls'. No exclusions or context for selection are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Description adds value beyond annotations by specifying that `limit` caps rows but rtp and smb protocols ignore it and return fixed-size tables. It also mentions the 'no <protocol> traffic found' response. These are behavioral traits not covered by readOnlyHint.
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 short (two sentences) and front-loads the purpose, but the '[Protocol]' prefix seems like a placeholder rather than a structured title. Each sentence earns its place, but minor clarity improvements are possible.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given three parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, return type, and a key behavioral note, but lacks details on what 'summary' and 'matching rows' mean, and how the protocol parameter's enum values correspond to analysis capabilities.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description only partially compensates by explaining `limit` behavior. It does not describe the `protocol` parameter beyond the enum list, nor the `pcap_file` parameter. The agent lacks guidance on why to choose a protocol or how the pre-chosen fields differ.
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 states the tool analyzes one protocol with pre-chosen fields and display filters, which distinguishes it from generic search tools. However, 'analyze' could be more specific about the exact output beyond 'summary plus matching rows'.
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 over alternatives like wireshark_search_packets or wireshark_stats_protocol_hierarchy. The description implies it's for quick protocol-specific analysis but lacks when-not-to-use or sibling differentiation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description does not disclose behavioral traits beyond the annotation readOnlyHint: true. It fails to mention what happens with incorrect passphrases, whether the output is decrypted packets, or that the tool reads a pcap file. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the annotation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence that is front-loaded with a tag. Every word contributes meaning, with no redundancy or waste.
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?
For a tool with 4 parameters, no output schema, and numerous siblings, the description is too minimal. It omits vital context: the tool operates on a pcap file, requires a WPA handshake, and its output format. The agent cannot fully understand the tool's purpose or use it effectively.
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 the description must compensate. It clarifies the purpose of the passphrase and SSID parameters, but completely ignores pcap_file (required) and display_filter. This is insufficient to guide parameter usage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states that the tool decrypts WPA/WPA2 traffic using a passphrase and optional SSID, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like wireshark_decrypt_tls. The verb 'Decrypt' and resource 'WPA/WPA2 traffic' are specific and unambiguous.
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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as wireshark_decrypt_tls or wireshark_verify_ssl_decryption. There is no mention of prerequisites, limitations, or context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true, which matches the read-only analysis nature. Description adds context on attack types but does not elaborate on other behaviors, scope, or effects beyond annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence includes security tag and concrete examples, concise with no wasted words.
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 one required parameter, no output schema, and many similar sibling tools, the description lacks details on output format, usage scope, and limitations, making it incomplete for an agent to confidently invoke.
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?
Parameter pcap_file has 0% schema coverage and the description provides no additional meaning or context about the parameter, leaving the agent uninformed about input requirements.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description explicitly states the tool detects DoS/DDoS patterns and lists specific examples (SYN flood, ICMP/UDP flood, DNS amplification), clearly distinguishing it from other detect tools like detect_port_scan or detect_exfiltration.
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. Does not mention prerequisites, limitations, or comparison with siblings like detect_dns_tunnel or detect_beaconing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true, so the tool is safe and non-destructive. The description adds context about detecting anomalies but lacks details on output behavior or limitations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with a front-loaded label '[Anomaly]'. Every word is meaningful and there is no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a detection tool with no output schema, the description could be more complete. It does not explain the return format or what constitutes an anomaly.
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% and the description does not explain the parameters. 'pcap_file' and 'limit' are left for the agent to infer from the schema alone.
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 states the tool detects protocol anomalies and provides specific examples (known protocols on non-standard ports, unusual distributions). This differentiates it from sibling detection tools like ARP spoofing or DoS detection.
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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, so the description's mention of 'Open a pcap' is consistent. The description adds value by stating it returns protocol-aware recommendations, but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits like authentication needs or file size limits.
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 short and to the point, with two sentences that front-load the entry point label. It is efficient but could be slightly improved with more structure.
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 that this is an entry point tool with many sibling analysis tools, the description lacks crucial details such as how to provide the pcap file, output format, and any prerequisites. This incompleteness risks incorrect tool usage.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description does not explain the meaning of the 'pcap_file' parameter (e.g., file path, URL, or content). The parameter name alone is insufficient for correct invocation, and the description fails to compensate.
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 states the tool opens a pcap file and returns protocol-aware tool recommendations. It identifies itself as an entry point, which helps distinguish it from sibling tools that perform analysis or extraction. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from all siblings.
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 labels the tool as '[Entry Point]', implying it should be used first, but does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use it or what alternatives exist. The usage context is implied rather than clearly stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description lists the health indicators analyzed, adding context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation. However, it does not disclose the format of results (e.g., textual summary, structured report) or any limitations (e.g., only works on TCP packets). Since annotations already indicate read-only, the description's additional detail is adequate but not comprehensive.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with a single sentence. It front-loads the category '[TCP]' and immediately states the action and indicators. Every word earns its place, with no wasted text. This is ideal for quick scanning by an AI agent.
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?
For a tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description lacks completeness. It does not specify the output format (e.g., report, summary, list), which is critical for an agent to determine if the tool's result meets its goal. Additionally, it does not mention prerequisites (e.g., valid TCP traffic in pcap) or limitations. Given the moderate complexity of network analysis, this omission reduces completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must implicitly convey parameter meaning. The single required parameter 'pcap_file' is implied by the tool's purpose (analyzing TCP health from a packet capture), but the description does not explicitly state its role or expected format (e.g., file path). The context is sufficient for an agent, but explicit parameter description would be helpful.
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 states the tool analyzes TCP connection health and lists specific indicators (retransmissions, dup ACKs, zero window, resets). The verb 'Analyze' and resource 'TCP connection health' are specific. However, it could be more explicit about the output format (e.g., summary table or list of issues), which would further clarify the tool's exact purpose. It distinguishes from generic protocol analysis tools like wireshark_analyze_protocol.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., wireshark_analyze_protocol, wireshark_stats_expert_info). It does not mention that it is focused on TCP health only, nor does it specify prerequisites like TCP traffic being present. An agent could misinterpret when to invoke this tool over other analysis tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true. Description adds the context of output format (hex/ASCII dump) and confirms it's a single packet operation. No contradictions.
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?
Extremely concise (5 words after the bracketed tag). Every word carries meaning, but lacks structure or additional context that could improve usability.
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?
For a simple tool with two required parameters and no output schema, the description is minimal. It does not explain parameter constraints, expected input formats, or return structure, leaving the agent underspecified.
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 schema has no parameter descriptions. The tool description does not explain the parameters (pcap_file, frame_number) at all, leaving the agent with only the parameter names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states it returns a raw hex/ASCII dump of a single packet, using a specific verb+resource. The [Bytes] prefix and mention of raw dump distinguish it from siblings like wireshark_get_packet_details or wireshark_get_packet_list.
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. No mention of when-not-to-use or prerequisites. The agent must infer from the tool name and description alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description does not need to reiterate that. The description adds that the tool retrieves packets surrounding a frame, which implies a read operation. However, it does not disclose how the 'context' is bounded, what happens if count is too large or frame_number is missing, or any performance implications.
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 very concise, consisting of one sentence. It is front-loaded with a '[Context]' tag that likely signals the type. While concise, it could benefit from slightly more structure without adding 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 tool has three parameters and no output schema, the description is too brief. It does not describe the output format, the relationship between count and the number of packets returned, or what 'surrounding' means (e.g., does it include the frame itself?). The agent lacks sufficient information to use the tool confidently.
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%, yet the description only mentions 'count' vaguely ('count before and after'). It does not explain pcap_file or frame_number, nor does it indicate that count has a default value of 5. The agent must infer most parameter meanings from context, which is insufficient.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool gets packets surrounding a specific frame with a count before and after. It uses a specific verb 'get' and identifies the resource 'packet context'. Among sibling tools like wireshark_get_packet_list and wireshark_get_packet_details, this description differentiates the tool's purpose well.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks any mention of prerequisites, limitations, or when not to use it. For example, it does not differentiate from wireshark_get_packet_list or wireshark_get_packet_details.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description is consistent with the readOnlyHint annotation (no destructive behavior). However, it does not add extra behavioral context beyond what annotations provide, such as the scope of 'all endpoints' or whether results are aggregate. Given annotations, a score of 3 is appropriate.
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 very short and front-loaded with '[Endpoints]', which helps in scanning. It wastes no words, but the brevity sacrifices completeness in other dimensions. Still, it is appropriately sized for a simple tool.
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 no output schema and minimal annotations, the description should explain what the tool returns (e.g., a list of endpoints with metrics). It does not address the return value, nor does it elaborate on the pcap_file parameter. This is insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's full behavior.
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 the description must compensate. It only explains the 'type' parameter by listing valid values, but does not define them or describe the required 'pcap_file' parameter at all. This leaves significant ambiguity for the agent.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'List', the resource 'endpoints', and includes 'traffic stats', making the tool's purpose explicit. It also lists valid protocol types, which distinguishes it from sibling stats tools like wireshark_stats_conversations or wireshark_stats_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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives like wireshark_stats_conversations or wireshark_stats_protocol_hierarchy. The description only implies usage for endpoint listing but provides no exclusion criteria or context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, indicating potential file modification. The description adds no behavioral context beyond stating the conversion action, such as whether it overwrites output files or requires external tools like text2pcap.
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 concise with one sentence and a brief note on encapsulation. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, though parameter details could be better integrated.
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 5 parameters with no schema descriptions and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks explanations for three of the five parameters, usage context, and output behavior, making it insufficient for an agent to use correctly.
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%, yet the description only explains the encapsulation parameter (default ether). It does not clarify the purpose of ascii_mode, timestamp_format, or the required input/output file parameters, leaving significant ambiguity for the agent.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool converts ASCII or hex dump into a capture file using text2pcap, specifying the input format and output type. It distinguishes from sibling tools, as no other tool performs this conversion.
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 usage when you have ASCII or hex dump data, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or limitations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds minimal extra behavioral context beyond capture_filter and ring_buffer syntax, not covering potential file overwrites or permission needs.
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 very short with no superfluous content. Two sentences front-load the purpose and parameter hints efficiently.
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?
With no output schema, 6 parameters, and 0% schema coverage, the description lacks essential details about required parameters (interface, output_file) and behavior (e.g., file overwrite, capture termination). Incomplete for safe invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%; the description provides syntax examples for capture_filter and ring_buffer, adding value for 2 of 6 parameters. However, interface, output_file, packet_count, and duration_seconds remain undescribed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Capture live network traffic', which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools that analyze or process existing captures.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The name and context imply it's for starting a new capture, but no exclusion criteria or alternative referrals are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false; description adds context about using SSLKEYLOGFILE and showing HTTP data, which aligns with readOnlyHint and provides moderate extra behavioral insight.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single, front-loaded sentence with '[Decrypt]' tag. No wasted words, efficient communication of core functionality.
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?
For a complex decryption tool, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on return values (e.g., decrypted packets, HTTP objects), how to interpret results, and the role of display_filter. No output schema to compensate.
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%, and the description fails to explain the parameters (pcap_file, keylog_file, display_filter) beyond their names. The mention of 'using SSLKEYLOGFILE' hints at keylog_file's role but is insufficient.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (Decrypt), target (TLS traffic), method (using SSLKEYLOGFILE), and output (show HTTP data). It distinguishes from siblings like wireshark_decrypt_wpa and wireshark_verify_ssl_decryption.
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. Does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a keylog file) or when not to use (e.g., if no keylog available). Siblings exist but no differentiation provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, so the description doesn't need to restate safety. It adds detection methods but no behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide. No contradictions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and key detection methods.
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?
The description lacks output format, result interpretation, or any side effects. Given no output schema, there is no guidance on what the tool returns. For a detection tool, this is insufficient.
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 has 0% description coverage for the only parameter (pcap_file). The description does not describe the parameter at all. The agent has no semantic guidance beyond the parameter name.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool detects DNS tunneling and lists specific indicators (long queries, TXT abuse, subdomain entropy). Among siblings like wireshark_detect_exfiltration or wireshark_detect_port_scan, it distinguishes itself by focusing on DNS tunneling.
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 usage for DNS-specific detection, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives or any exclusions. The sibling list provides context, but no direct comparison or when-not-to-use advice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description mentions 'duplicate window matching', adding some algorithmic context beyond the annotation destructiveHint=true. However, it does not explain the matching criteria (e.g., packet bytes vs. timestamps) or behavioral implications like file modification or limitations.
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 a single 9-word sentence, making it very concise. However, it lacks necessary detail for a destructive tool with 3 parameters, resulting in under-specification rather than efficient 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 destructive hint, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description should provide more context about the tool's effect, constraints, and output. It fails to mention that it writes an output file, the range of duplicate_window, or that editcap must be installed.
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% and the description provides no explanation for any of the three parameters (input_file, output_file, duplicate_window). Parameter names are somewhat intuitive, but duplicate_window's role is unclear without additional context.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Remove' and the resource 'duplicate packets', with the method 'using editcap's duplicate window matching'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like wireshark_editcap_split and wireshark_editcap_time_shift by specifically targeting deduplication.
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 usage for removing duplicates but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like wireshark_editcap_trim or other editcap tools. No explicit when/when-not or prerequisites are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is clear. The description adds behavioral details (specific spoofing types) but does not disclose additional traits like output format or performance implications.
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 extremely concise (one line) and front-loaded with a category tag [ARP]. Every word adds value, though it could be slightly more structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one input, no output schema, clear annotations), the description sufficiently covers its purpose and behavior. However, it lacks explanation of output or side effects, but these are minimal given read-only nature.
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?
The schema has 0% description coverage for the pcap_file parameter with only one parameter. The description does not explain the parameter at all, failing to compensate for the low schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it detects ARP spoofing and lists specific types (duplicate IP-MAC, gratuitous floods, reply storms), distinguishing it from other detection siblings like port scan or exfiltration.
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?
While the description implies use for ARP spoofing detection, it does not explicitly state when to use or not use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling context provides differentiation but the description lacks direct guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate read-only behavior. The description adds value by explaining the detection method (analyzing timing intervals and jitter). However, it does not disclose the return format or detailed algorithm thresholds.
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 a relevant '[Anomaly]' prefix. It is efficient but could be slightly expanded to include more context 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 no output schema and 3 parameters with no descriptions, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what the tool returns or provide enough detail for an agent to confidently use it without additional context.
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?
The description mentions 'jitter' and 'timing intervals' but does not explicitly link to the parameters max_jitter and min_connections. With 0% schema description coverage, the description provides minimal additional meaning for the parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: detecting periodic communication patterns (C2 beacons) by analyzing timing intervals and jitter. The verb 'detect' and the specific anomaly type distinguish it from other detection tools in the sibling list.
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 like wireshark_detect_exfiltration or wireshark_detect_dns_tunnel. The description lacks any when-to-use or when-not-to-use information.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, indicating file creation. The description adds the protocol options but does not disclose other behaviors (e.g., overwrite behavior, whether extraction preserves metadata). The description is adequate given the annotation coverage.
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 very concise (one short sentence) and front-loaded with an '[Export]' label. It efficiently communicates the core purpose and protocol list. Slightly more structure 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 3 required parameters, a destructive hint, and no output schema, the description lacks details on return values, error conditions, and output format. It feels incomplete for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior and side effects.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description should explain all parameters. It only partially clarifies 'protocol' by listing values, but 'pcap_file' and 'dest_dir' remain completely unexplained. This is insufficient for an agent to correctly invoke the tool.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Extract embedded files from traffic' with specific protocol options (http, smb, tftp, imf, dicom). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like wireshark_extract_credentials or wireshark_extract_dns_queries, which focus on different data types.
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 lists acceptable protocols, giving some usage context, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like wireshark_follow_stream or wireshark_extract_http_requests. No 'when not to use' guidance is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true (safe read) and openWorldHint=false. The description adds value by specifying the output format (TSV, 'Tabular') and the field parameter format (comma-separated). However, it does not mention pagination behavior (limit, offset) or the effect of display_filter, though these are present in the input schema. The description goes beyond annotations but could still be improved.
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 very concise at one sentence plus an example, front-loading the key purpose and format. It is efficient but could be slightly more structured without becoming verbose. Every word earns its place.
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 5 parameters, no output schema, and many sibling tools, the description is incomplete. It covers output format and field specification but omits critical details about file selection, pagination (limit/offset), and filtering (display_filter). An agent would lack context for correct invocation, especially alongside tools like wireshark_get_packet_list or wireshark_search_packets.
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 the description must explain parameters. It only explains the 'fields' parameter with an example. The other four parameters ('pcap_file', 'limit', 'offset', 'display_filter') receive no explanation, leaving the agent uncertain about their purpose or defaults.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool extracts fields as TSV, with a specific verb ('Extract'), resource ('fields'), and output format ('TSV'). It provides an example of comma-separated field syntax, which differentiates it from sibling tools that extract specific data types (e.g., credentials, DNS queries) or return full packets.
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?
The description lacks guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like wireshark_extract_credentials or wireshark_get_packet_list. It does not mention alternatives or provide context for preferring this over other extract or packet tools. The usage is implied but not explicitly stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false. The description adds the output format (TSV) and the extracted fields, which is useful context. However, it does not disclose that the 'limit' parameter truncates results or that only the first N requests are returned.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It efficiently conveys the tool's core purpose and output format.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple extraction tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers basic purpose and format. However, it lacks details on parameter behavior and potential edge cases (e.g., non-HTTP PCAPs), leaving gaps in completeness.
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 the description must compensate. It mentions extracted fields but does not describe the 'pcap_file' or 'limit' parameters. The agent is left to infer that 'pcap_file' is the input PCAP and 'limit' controls request count, but no explicit clarification is given.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool extracts HTTP request details (method, URI, host, user-agent) and outputs as TSV. This specific verb and resource distinguish it from sibling tools like wireshark_extract_credentials or wireshark_extract_dns_queries.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., wireshark_extract_fields). It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., pcap must contain HTTP traffic) or cases where another tool would be more appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations include destructiveHint: true, and the description says 'save to a new file', which implies creating a new file (destructive). However, it does not clarify that the original file remains unchanged (not in-place modification) nor mention potential overwriting behavior. No contradictions with annotations.
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, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It conveys the core action. However, it could be slightly more structured (e.g., split into action and details) without adding 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 of Wireshark display filters (syntax, operators) and numerous sibling tools, the description is too minimal. It does not explain what a display filter is or how to format it, what output file format is used, or any side effects. No output schema exists to compensate.
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?
Input schema has 3 required parameters with 0% description coverage. The description only mentions parameter names implicitly ('input_file, output_file, display_filter'), but provides no additional semantics such as expected file paths, formats, or display filter syntax. The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of detail.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Filter packets from a pcap and save to a new file using a Wireshark display filter', which precisely identifies the verb (filter/save), resource (pcap file), and distinguishes from siblings like wireshark_editcap_split (which splits by time) or wireshark_merge_pcaps (which merges).
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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or limitations. However, the purpose is clear enough that an agent can infer its use for filtering, but lacks exclusionary context given the large sibling list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description is consistent with readOnlyHint=true, confirming no destructive behavior. It adds the types of flow graphs but does not describe any side effects, performance implications, or limitations beyond what annotations provide.
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 very short (one sentence) and front-loaded with the purpose. It is concise but lacks structure (e.g., not separating purpose from details). Every word is useful, but could be slightly expanded for clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema, the description should clarify what the tool returns (e.g., an image, text, or data). It only states it 'shows' a graph, leaving ambiguity about output format. Given the tool's complexity (flow graph), more context would help.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It lists the three types for flow_type (any, tcp, icmp), which adds meaning beyond the schema's default. However, pcap_file parameter is not described, and overall parameter documentation is minimal.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool generates a flow/sequence graph showing packet exchange, with specific types listed (any, tcp, icmp). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like wireshark_stats_protocol_hierarchy or wireshark_stats_io_graph, which have different purposes.
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. While the types are listed, there is no mention of context, prerequisites, or when not to use it. The description does not compare to sibling tools or clarify usage scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds deprecation context, but no other behavioral details beyond what annotations (readOnlyHint=true) already convey. It does not contradict annotations.
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 concise with a single sentence and starts with the key 'DEPRECATED' flag, but it could include a brief note on what 'JSON packet data' means.
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?
While deprecation is flagged, the description is too minimal for a tool with 4 parameters and no output schema; agents lack context on return format or how to use parameters if they attempt to use it.
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?
The description mentions no parameters, and schema coverage is 0%, leaving the agent to rely solely on parameter names and types without any semantic guidance.
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 states the tool provides 'JSON packet data' and marks it as deprecated, which identifies its purpose despite lacking specificity about the data source or structure.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly tells the agent to use 'get_packet_list + get_packet_details instead', offering clear guidance on alternatives and when not to use this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations (readOnlyHint=true) already indicate safety; description adds list of valid types but doesn't detail behavior like aggregation or filtering. Acceptable but minimal extra transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise, single sentence with clear purpose and parameter options. No wasted words; front-loads key information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema, so description could have described return format or stats columns. Adequate for a simple tool but leaves the agent guessing about output shape.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 0% coverage; description explicitly lists all allowed values for 'type', adding meaning beyond raw schema. Missing description for 'pcap_file' but parameter name is self-explanatory.
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 clearly states it retrieves communication pairs and stats, and lists supported types. Distinguishes from siblings like endpoints or protocol hierarchy, but could be more specific about what stats are returned.
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 over alternatives (e.g., endpoints for unidirectional flows). No when-not-to-use or context provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is clear. Description adds that threshold defines 'min unique dst ports to flag', which clarifies behavior. No contradictions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences with no redundant words. Front-loaded with purpose, then parameter hint.
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?
No output schema, and description does not mention return format or what information is provided after detection. Important missing context for an analysis 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 coverage is 0%. Description explains threshold parameter but omits any description for pcap_file (required). Only partial compensation for schema gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states 'Detect port scanning' with specific scan types (SYN, FIN, NULL, Xmas). Provides security context and distinguishes from sibling detection tools like exfiltration or ARP spoofing.
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?
Implies usage for security analysis but lacks explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives. The threshold parameter hint is helpful but not enough to differentiate from other detection tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true. The description adds that the tool uses capinfos and returns metadata, providing minimal extra behavioral context beyond the annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence front-loaded with the key action and result. No filler words, every part serves a purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description conveys the essential purpose and output fields. Lacks explicit return format but lists metadata types, which is adequate.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries full burden but only lists the parameter name (pcap_file) without specifying format, constraints, or examples. The description does not compensate for the schema gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly specifies the verb 'Get' and resource 'capture file metadata', listing specific fields (type, packet count, duration, size). It distinguishes this tool from siblings that focus on packets, statistics, or capture operations.
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 like wireshark_open_file or wireshark_quick_analysis. The description mentions 'via capinfos' but does not explain context for choosing this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, so the description's claim of returning full JSON is consistent. However, it does not disclose any behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide, such as return format details or error handling. For a read-only tool with annotations, the description adds minimal value.
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 very short (two sentences) and front-loaded with '[Detail]'. It is efficient but could be more structured by clearly separating the main purpose from parameter details.
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 no output schema and low parameter description coverage, the description is incomplete. It explains the layers parameter but omits purpose and format for 'pcap_file' and 'frame_number'. Additionally, it does not describe what the JSON output contains, leaving the agent with insufficient information for reliable use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description explains only the 'layers' parameter as a 'comma-separated protocol filter'. It fails to describe the required parameters 'pcap_file' and 'frame_number', which are critical for usage. With 0% schema description coverage, the description only partially compensates, leaving two of three parameters unexplained.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description explicitly states it returns 'Full JSON for one packet' and explains the layers parameter as a protocol filter. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'wireshark_get_packet_list' (multiple packets) and 'wireshark_get_packet_bytes' (raw bytes).
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 gives a brief hint about using the layers parameter but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Usage is implied from the name and context, but no when-to-use or when-not-to-use is stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate read-only (readOnlyHint=true) which aligns with detection. Description adds specific behavioral traits: looks for large outbound transfers, DNS length anomalies, non-standard ports. No contradictions detected.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence with front-loaded '[Anomaly]' category. Every word is informative; no redundancy or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Lacks details on output format or result interpretation, which is important for a detection tool. However, given sibling tools have similarly sparse descriptions and no output schema exists, it is minimally adequate for basic usage.
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 tool description provides no additional meaning for parameters 'pcap_file' or 'limit'. Agent receives no guidance on how to use parameters beyond schema types and defaults.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly specifies the tool detects data exfiltration with concrete examples (large outbound transfers, DNS length anomalies, non-standard ports). Distinguishes from sibling tools like wireshark_detect_dns_tunnel and wireshark_detect_port_scan by focusing on exfiltration patterns.
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?
Implies use for exfiltration detection but no explicit guidance on when to use this vs alternatives like wireshark_detect_beaconing or wireshark_detect_dns_tunnel. Does not mention exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows it is a safe read operation. The description adds value by specifying the output format (TSV) and exact extracted fields, providing behavioral context beyond what annotations convey. No contradictions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: a single line with a categorization prefix and clear verb-object-output. Every word adds value, and the core action is front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given low complexity and no output schema, the description covers the basic purpose but misses details like column order of the TSV, explanation of the limit parameter, or any limitations. It is minimally adequate.
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%, placing full burden on description to explain parameters. The description does not mention pcap_file or limit, leaving the agent to infer meaning from names alone. This is insufficient for a 2-parameter tool with no schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (extract), resource (DNS queries from pcap file), and output format (TSV). It specifies the extracted fields (name, type, response flag), which distinguishes it from sibling extraction tools like wireshark_extract_credentials or wireshark_extract_http_requests.
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 (e.g., wireshark_detect_dns_tunnel, wireshark_export_objects). The description does not mention prerequisites, use cases, or when not to use it, leaving the agent without context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds some behavioral context beyond annotations: it explains the output type (I/O Graph) and parameter semantics. Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description is consistent but not exhaustive; it lacks details on return format or limitations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loading the purpose and then explaining parameters. Every sentence adds value; no wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity, the description covers the purpose and key parameters. However, it lacks details on the output format and could better differentiate from sibling stats tools, though the type name helps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description explains interval as 'bucket size in seconds' and filters as 'optional semicolon-separated display filters to break the traffic out by type', adding meaning to the schema which has 0% description coverage. However, pcap_file is not described beyond being required.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool produces an I/O Graph showing traffic volume over time, which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from sibling stats tools like wireshark_stats_protocol_hierarchy, wireshark_stats_endpoints, etc., by naming the output type.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like wireshark_stats_protocol_hierarchy or wireshark_stats_conversations. The description does not mention prerequisites or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotation readOnlyHint: true confirms no modification, and 'Scan' aligns with read-only behavior. The description adds context about scanning specific credential types, but does not detail output format or any side effects.
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 sentence with a front-loaded tag, making it efficient. However, it is somewhat terse and could include more detail without sacrificing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the basic intent but omits return value details and protocol coverage scope beyond examples. It is minimally adequate.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate, but it does not mention the 'pcap_file' parameter at all. The parameter's purpose is obvious from the tool name, but no constraints or examples are provided.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool scans for plaintext credentials, listing specific protocols like HTTP Basic Auth, FTP, and Telnet. This distinguishes it from sibling tools such as wireshark_extract_http_requests or wireshark_extract_dns_queries, which focus on different data extraction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description starts with '[Security]', indicating its domain, and the protocol examples imply when to use it (when looking for plaintext credentials). However, it lacks explicit instructions on when not to use it or alternatives, though the sibling list provides context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, which matches extraction. The description adds behavioral context: it uses local fingerprint files and provides a caveat about JA3 interpretation. No contradictions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, compact and direct. Every sentence adds value: one states the action and outcome, the other provides important context and a caution.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema is provided, and the description does not mention return value format or structure. The limit parameter is undocumented. However, the core extraction purpose and behavioral notes are covered. Incomplete for a tool that likely returns a list of fingerprints.
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%, and the description does not explain any parameters. The required pcap_file and optional limit are not mentioned. Parameter semantics are left entirely to the schema, which has no descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it extracts JA3 and JA3S TLS fingerprints, which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling extract tools like extract_credentials and extract_dns_queries by focusing on TLS fingerprints.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explains that matches are against local fingerprint files and warns that JA3 identifies a TLS configuration, not an application, so treat matches as leads. It gives context for when to use, though it doesn't explicitly state when not to use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces that by calling it an 'enrichment' operation. It adds value by disclosing the dependency on an external database (GeoLite2 DB), which is beyond the annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with a single sentence that front-loads the category '[Enrichment]' and includes essential details. No superfluous information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers the core purpose and a key dependency, but lacks parameter explanations and output specifications. For a tool with no output schema, the description should provide more context about the enrichment results.
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%, but the description fails to explain the two parameters (pcap_file, limit). The tool's purpose implies pcap_file is input and limit controls IP count, but no explicit guidance is given, leaving the agent to infer meaning.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool performs GeoIP enrichment for unique IPs, providing country, city, ASN. It specifies the need for a GeoLite2 DB, making the purpose unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools like extraction or analysis tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly mentions the prerequisite of a GeoLite2 DB, which guides when to use the tool. However, it does not mention when not to use it or alternatives among the many sibling tools, slightly reducing guidance completeness.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description is consistent but adds minimal extra behavior beyond 'for capture'. No additional insights like platform-specific behavior or sudo requirements are disclosed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, concise sentence that conveys the tool's purpose without any redundancy or unnecessary details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is clear for a simple listing tool with no params. However, it does not mention the output format (e.g., list of names, objects), which could aid agent expectations. Minor gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With zero parameters, the schema covers all cases. The description adds no param info, but per guidelines baseline is 4 for no parameters. Description is sufficient.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool lists available network interfaces for capture, directly matching the name and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools which focus on capture, stats, detection, etc.
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?
No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to guidance is provided. Usage is implied as a prerequisite for capture, but alternatives like wireshark_get_capabilities exist. A brief note on context would improve clarity.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds that it is an indicator (not extraction) and provides a false-positive warning. This adds context beyond the annotations, though it could detail the exact magic numbers scanned.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, minimal waste. Each sentence serves a purpose: action, guidance, caution.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers purpose, usage, and a warning, but lacks details about the return format (e.g., count or list) and the exact set of magic numbers. For a simple tool with no output schema, it is adequate but could be more complete.
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%, but the description does not describe the 'pcap_file' parameter at all. It only implies a pcap input via context, but without explaining format, path, or expected value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Count packets containing a file magic number', listing common magic types. It distinguishes from the sibling 'wireshark_export_objects' by noting it is an indicator, not extraction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly states when to use this tool ('indicator') and when to use an alternative ('use wireshark_export_objects to get file bytes'), and warns that hits may be coincidental.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses that it creates a new pcap file, consistent with the destructiveHint annotation. It adds value by specifying that it extracts ranges (implying reading from original and writing new), which is beyond the annotation's binary destructive flag.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely succinct: one short sentence and a format example. Every word adds value, and it is front-loaded with the key action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (3 required params, no output schema, annotations covering destructive hint), the description is complete enough for an AI agent to understand the tool's basic usage. However, it lacks details about return values, overwrite behavior, or prerequisites (e.g., existing pcap file).
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds meaning for the 'frame_ranges' parameter by providing an example format ('1-10 15 20-30'), which is not clear from the schema alone. Other parameters (pcap_file, output_file) are self-explanatory from their names, so no additional explanation is needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool extracts specific frame ranges to a new pcap, with a clear example of the range format. It distinguishes itself from siblings like wireshark_editcap_split by focusing on frame number ranges rather than time or split criteria.
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 explains what the tool does and provides a format example, but does not explicitly guide when to use it vs alternatives (e.g., editcap_split for splitting by time or packets). Usage context is implied but not made explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so description does not repeat that. It adds value by specifying the output nature (list of available tools and versions), which helps the agent understand what to expect.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, front-loaded with key information. No unnecessary words; every part adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no parameters, no output schema, and a simple purpose, the description is fully adequate. It explains what the tool returns without needing detailed schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
No parameters exist. Schema coverage is 100% for zero parameters, so description does not need to add parameter info. Baseline score of 4 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the tool retrieves capabilities (available tools and versions) for the MCP server instance. Verb 'Get' and resource 'capabilities' are specific, and the tool is distinct from all siblings which are operational tools.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. Usage is implied as a meta-tool for discovery, but no when-not or alternative mentions are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![Wireshark-MCP MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/bx33661/Wireshark-MCP/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/bx33661/Wireshark-MCP)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![Wireshark-MCP MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/bx33661/Wireshark-MCP/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/bx33661/Wireshark-MCP)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/bx33661/Wireshark-MCP'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server