Track pcap investigation findings by creating saved cases, recording tool results, setting verdicts, adding notes, and generating reports.
[Case] Saved investigation. create(text=title,target=pcaps) record(text=tool JSON) verdict(target=finding id,text=confirmed|dismissed|open: note) note show report list
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | No | ||
| action | Yes | ||
| target | No | ||
| case_id | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v4.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare that the tool is not read-only and is destructive, so the safety profile is partially covered. The description adds some behavioral detail by naming mutating operations like create, record, and verdict and by explaining what each action targets, but it does not clarify what may be destroyed, whether changes are reversible, or permission requirements.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short and front-loads the case context before the action grammar, but the compressed shorthand makes it harder to parse than necessary. It avoids waste but sacrifices clarity for brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a 4-parameter mutating tool with no schema descriptions and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It omits the valid values for action, the role of case_id, return behavior, and destructive/state-change details an agent would need to invoke it reliably.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the full burden. It maps text and target for some actions, such as create, record, and verdict, but leaves action values and the case_id parameter unexplained, and the notation is too terse to fully compensate for the schema gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description identifies the tool as a saved-investigation case manager and lists concrete actions such as create, record, verdict, note, show, report, and list. However, the wording is fragmented shorthand rather than a clear verb-plus-resource statement, so an agent must decode the bracket notation to understand the purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description lists internal actions but does not explain when to use this tool versus the many packet-analysis siblings, nor does it state prerequisites or exclusions. The agent is left to infer that this is for case management rather than analysis.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.