Split a pcap capture into smaller files by packet count or time interval, enabling focused analysis, sharing, or archiving of large network traces.
Split a capture into smaller files by packet count or interval.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| input_file | Yes | ||
| output_prefix | Yes | ||
| packets_per_file | No | ||
| seconds_per_file | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Input schema / properties / input_file / titleRemoved value: -"Input File"Input schema / properties / output_prefix / titleRemoved value: -"Output Prefix"Input schema / properties / packets_per_file / titleRemoved value: -"Packets Per File"Input schema / properties / seconds_per_file / titleRemoved value: -"Seconds Per File"Input schema / titleRemoved value: -"wireshark_editcap_splitArguments"Output schema / (root)Previous value: -{
- "properties": {
- "result": {
- "title": "Result",
- "type": "string"
- }
- },
- "required": [
- "result"
- ],
- "title": "wireshark_editcap_splitOutput",
- "type": "object"
-}New value: +nullv1.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds nothing beyond the basic action: it does not mention output file naming, overwrite behavior, whether the input file is preserved, or any permissions or rate limits.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It efficiently states the action and the two splitting criteria without unnecessary words.
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 tool with four parameters, no output schema, and destructive write behavior, the description is too sparse. It omits required parameter semantics, the interaction between the two optional criteria (and their default 0 values), and any behavioral details about the resulting files.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It only maps to two optional parameters (packets_per_file and seconds_per_file) through 'packet count or interval', while the required input_file and output_prefix parameters receive no additional meaning beyond their names.
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 states a specific verb (split) and resource (capture into smaller files), and adds the splitting method (by packet count or interval). It is clear but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like wireshark_editcap_trim or wireshark_editcap_deduplicate.
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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as trim, deduplicate, or time_shift. Usage is only implied by the verb 'split' and the two criteria, 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.