Adjust all packet timestamps by a positive or negative offset in seconds to correct time discrepancies in pcap files.
Adjust all packet timestamps by a positive or negative offset in seconds.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| seconds | Yes | ||
| input_file | Yes | ||
| output_file | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Input schema / properties / input_file / titleRemoved value: -"Input File"Input schema / properties / output_file / titleRemoved value: -"Output File"Input schema / properties / seconds / titleRemoved value: -"Seconds"Input schema / titleRemoved value: -"wireshark_editcap_time_shiftArguments"Output schema / (root)Previous value: -{
- "properties": {
- "result": {
- "title": "Result",
- "type": "string"
- }
- },
- "required": [
- "result"
- ],
- "title": "wireshark_editcap_time_shiftOutput",
- "type": "object"
-}New value: +nullv1.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and openWorldHint=false. The description adds that all packet timestamps are shifted by an offset, but does not clarify whether input_file is modified in place or a new output_file is written, nor any permissions or reversibility behavior. Significant gap for a destructive tool.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence states the action, scope, and offset direction without filler. It is appropriately sized for what it conveys.
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 destructive file-processing tool with three required parameters and no output schema, the description leaves essential operational context undocumented: what input_file and output_file mean, whether the original is preserved, and what the tool returns. Incomplete.
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% with three required parameters. The description explains only that 'seconds' is a positive or negative offset, adding sign semantics beyond the parameter name, while input_file and output_file remain entirely undocumented.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb (Adjust), resource (packet timestamps), scope (all), and parameter meaning (positive/negative offset in seconds). It is distinguishable from timestamp-unrelated editcap siblings, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from editcap_trim, editcap_split, or 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?
No when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives are provided. The agent must infer that this is for timestamp correction rather than trimming, splitting, or deduplicating.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.