NetMCP

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v0.3.1
Disambiguation2/5
Many tools have overlapping purposes, such as multiple analyze_pcap_file variants (analyze_pcap_file, deep_packet_analysis, get_packet_summary) and several capture tools (capture_live_packets, capture_targeted_traffic, quick_capture) that differ only slightly in parameters. This creates ambiguity for an agent trying to select the correct tool.
Naming Consistency3/5
Tool names consistently use snake_case and follow a verb_noun pattern (e.g., analyze_dns_traffic, get_conversation_stats). However, the set of verbs is diverse (analyze, capture, export, get, follow, etc.), which is acceptable but not perfectly uniform. Overall, naming is functional but not highly predictable.
Tool Count2/5
With 41 tools, the surface is overly large for typical network analysis needs. Many tools are redundant (e.g., three capture functions for similar purposes) or overly specialized. A smaller, more focused set would reduce complexity without sacrificing capability.
Completeness3/5
The tool set covers a broad range of network analysis: capture, analysis, export, threat intel, visualization, and conversion. However, there are notable gaps, such as no tools for modifying packets, wireless capture, or advanced protocol analysis beyond basic HTTP/DNS. Some core workflows are covered but with excessive redundancy.
Average 3.7/5 across 41 of 41 tools scored. Lowest: 2.6/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on April 3, 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

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false (possible mutation) and destructiveHint=false but the description does not explain what side effects occur (e.g., where traffic is stored, if it's returned, or if it requires cleanup). The Args mention progress reporting but omit overall behavior and output format.
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 but includes a redundant Args paragraph that duplicates schema information. It could be streamlined while adding essential guidance. The first sentence is clear but not sufficiently informative.
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 6 parameters, no output schema, and openWorldHint=true, the description should explain capture behavior, output, and how filters work. It falls short, providing minimal context for correct invocation, especially for an agent unfamiliar with network capture tools.
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%, so the description must explain parameters. It lists names and types but offers no syntax, constraints (e.g., IP format, port range), or how protocols are specified. The protocol list is mentioned in the Args but not as an enum in schema, causing ambiguity.
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 'Capture traffic targeted to specific host, port, or protocol.' It clearly indicates the tool's action and the filtering criteria, distinguishing it from broader capture tools like capture_live_packets. However, it lacks explicit differentiation from siblings like quick_capture.
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 vs alternatives such as capture_live_packets or analyze_http_traffic. There is no mention of prerequisites, limitations, or how filters interact, leaving the agent to guess.
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 indicate the tool is not read-only, not destructive, not idempotent, and open-world. The description adds no behavioral details beyond what parameters imply. It does not mention side effects (e.g., network interface usage, potential packet loss), permissions needed, or capture lifecycle (how to stop, where output goes).
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 (under 100 words) and front-loaded with the purpose. The parameter list is readable, though it could be improved with bullet points or formatting. Every sentence is informative, and there is no fluff.
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 (capture with profile, 4 params, no output schema), the description lacks key details: what is the capture output (file, stream, memory?), how to stop capture, any dependencies (Wireshark profiles must exist), and error conditions. The agent may struggle to use it correctly without more context.
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 provides brief parameter descriptions: 'network interface name (e.g., eth0, en0)', 'Wireshark profile name to apply', and defaults for duration/packet_count. While it adds examples and context, it does not explain how to discover valid interfaces or profile names, nor how duration/packet_count interact (e.g., which stops first). This is adequate but not rich.
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 does a live capture using a Wireshark profile's configuration. This is distinct from sibling tools like 'capture_live_packets' (which presumably lacks profile integration) and 'apply_profile_capture' (which may only apply the profile without capturing). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from these 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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., Wireshark must be installed, profile must exist) or exclusions (e.g., not for offline captures). The agent is left to infer usage from the name and parameters.
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 readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds 'capture live packets' but no additional behavioral traits such as permission requirements, potential network disruption, or resource consumption. The description 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: a single-line purpose followed by parameter explanations. Every sentence adds value, and the structure is front-loaded with the core action.
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 information about the return value (e.g., output format, whether packets are saved or streamed) and does not mention prerequisites like permissions or network access. For a 4-parameter tool with no output schema, this is insufficient.
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 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by providing textual explanations for all four parameters, including examples for interface and BPF filter. This adds meaning beyond schema property names, though could include valid ranges or formats.
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 'Capture live network packets from a specified interface,' providing a specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'capture_targeted_traffic' or 'quick_capture' that also capture 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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. No exclusions, prerequisites, or context provided to help an agent decide between this and other capture 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?
The annotations (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint) already declare this as a safe, read-only operation. The description adds no behavioral details beyond the annotation set, such as file existence expectations or error handling, which is acceptable but not additive.
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 at two lines, with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the purpose. However, it could benefit from a brief example or note on supported paths without becoming verbose.
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, the description should explain what metadata is returned (e.g., file size, packet count). It does not, leaving the agent unsure of the output shape. The tool is simple but still incomplete in this regard.
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 single parameter 'filepath' has no description in the schema (0% coverage). The description adds 'Path to PCAP/PCAPNG file', clarifying accepted file types. This provides minimal additional meaning beyond the schema's type and title.
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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'metadata about a PCAP capture file'. It differentiates from the similarly named 'get_capture_info' by specifying 'file', implying a single file operation. However, it could be more precise about what metadata is included.
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 like 'get_capture_info' or other analysis tools. The description gives no context for selection, leaving the agent to infer based on the tool name 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?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description does not add additional behavioral context (e.g., performance, side effects, requirements for the PCAP file). Without annotations, this would be lower, but with them, the description adds minimal extra 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 concise: a brief one-line purpose followed by parameter details in a list format. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the main functionality. Every sentence adds value, though the parameter list could be more 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 there is no output schema, the description fails to explain the return format or structure of the statistics. For a statistics tool, this is crucial for an agent to use the result correctly. Additionally, the description does not guide on choosing conv_type or any constraints. It feels incomplete despite the parameter details.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain the parameters. It does add basic explanations: file_path is 'Path to PCAP/PCAPNG file', conv_type is mentioned with options (eth, ip, ipv6, tcp, udp), and display_filter is 'Optional Wireshark display filter'. This is helpful but not exhaustive (e.g., default for conv_type is not explained, but the schema shows default 'ip'). It does not clarify the expected format or behavior of the display filter.
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 provides IP/TCP/UDP/Ethernet conversation statistics from a PCAP file. It specifies the resource (PCAP file) and the action (get conversation statistics), though it could be more specific about what statistics are included. It somewhat distinguishes from siblings like follow_tcp_stream or get_packet_summary, but not explicitly.
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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No when-to-use or when-not-to-use statements are given, and no mentioning of alternatives. The agent must infer from the purpose alone.
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 and destructiveHint=false, so description adds no behavioral context beyond stating it's read-only. Does not discuss file path validation, error handling, or output characteristics.
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: two sentences, no fluff. Purpose and parameter description are front-loaded and clear.
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 a single parameter, description should explain what protocol hierarchy statistics include (e.g., packet counts, protocols). Lacks completeness for an analysis tool among 40+ siblings.
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, description merely restates parameter name and type from schema ('Path to PCAP/PCAPNG file'). Adds no semantic meaning like accepted formats, file size limits, or examples.
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 verb (get), resource (protocol hierarchy statistics), and source (PCAP file). Distinguishes from siblings like get_conversation_stats or get_io_statistics.
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 analyze_pcap_file or detect_network_protocols. No context on prerequisites or typical use cases.
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 provide readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds little beyond 'capture network traffic'. It fails to disclose that capturing requires network interface access, may require root privileges, or that it writes to the filesystem. Major behavioral gaps remain.
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 but somewhat redundant with the schema. The parameter list adds value but could be more concise by omitting obvious repetitions. Adequate but not tightly written.
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 basic annotations, the description lacks information about return values, error conditions (e.g., permission denied, file exists), and execution context (e.g., blocks for duration). Significant gaps for a network capture tool that writes files.
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%, so description must compensate but only provides one-line descriptions that essentially repeat parameter names (e.g., 'Network interface name'). It does not explain formatting for 'bpf_filter', or that 'duration' and 'packet_count' have defaults. Insufficient for a 5-parameter 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 the verb 'capture', resource 'network traffic', and output 'save to a PCAP file'. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'capture_live_packets' by explicitly mentioning persistent storage.
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 says 'Useful when you want to keep a capture for later analysis,' which implies when to use but does not provide explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives. Guidance is implied rather than explicit.
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, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds no behavioral context beyond what annotations provide, but does not contradict them.
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: one clear sentence followed by a bullet list of parameters. No extraneous information, front-loaded 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?
Despite good annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain return values, output format, or how the profile is applied. With no output schema, the agent lacks critical information about what to expect from the tool.
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 adds minimal meaning for parameters (e.g., 'Path to PCAP/PCAPNG file' for filepath), compensating for 0% schema description coverage. However, it lacks details like value constraints or examples.
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 analyzes a PCAP file using a specific Wireshark profile. The purpose is specific and the resource is identified, but it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'analyze_pcap_file' or 'capture_with_profile'.
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. With over 30 sibling tools, explicit usage context is missing.
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 idempotentHint=true, and the description is consistent, not contradicting. It adds no additional behavioral details beyond generating a report, which is sufficient 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 uses a clear docstring format with a brief title and bulleted args. It is slightly verbose but well-structured and easy to parse.
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 tool's purpose and parameter meanings adequately. However, it does not list available sections or explain output details, which could be helpful. The output schema is absent, but annotations are present.
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 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining each parameter's purpose and format (e.g., 'comma-separated list of sections'). This adds meaningful context beyond the schema's titles 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 the tool generates a comprehensive analysis report in markdown or HTML, specifying the verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools, though no direct sibling exists for report generation.
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 parameter instructions but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like analyze_pcap_file or export_packets_csv. No when-not or situational context is given.
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 provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds no additional behavioral context such as output format, pagination, or limitations. It does not contradict annotations, but adds minimal value beyond them.
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 with two meaningful sentences. It is front-loaded with the core purpose. However, the 'Args' section is redundant given the schema, which slightly reduces efficiency.
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 the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description covers the basic functionality but lacks hints about what the output looks like (e.g., list of stream numbers or details). Annotations help, but the description could be more complete.
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 includes an 'Args' section that says 'filepath: Path to PCAP/PCAPNG file', which essentially repeats the schema's title 'Filepath' with a generic description. With 0% schema description coverage, the description does not provide additional meaning like file size limits or supported paths.
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' and resource 'TCP conversations' with the condition 'found in a PCAP file'. It is specific and distinct from siblings like 'follow_tcp_stream' which focuses on a single stream.
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 listing TCP streams from a PCAP file but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives like 'follow_tcp_stream' or other analysis tools. No when-not or alternative hints 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, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true. The description adds that the tool analyzes with optional display filters, which is consistent. No additional behavioral context beyond annotations, but annotations are rich, so the bar is lower. No contradiction found.
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: one sentence for purpose and three bullet points for parameters. No extraneous text. All information is front-loaded and relevant. Every sentence earns its place.
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 is adequate for a tool with good annotations, but lacks output description. Since there is no output schema, the agent does not know what 'Analyze' returns. Additionally, the description does not clarify scope (e.g., summary vs full analysis) or differentiate from similarly named siblings. Parameters are well-covered, but overall completeness is moderate.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains filepath (path to pcap file), display_filter with an example ('http', 'ip.addr == 10.0.0.1'), and max_packets with its default value (10000). This adds meaningful context beyond the schema titles, though could include more detail like file format support.
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 'Analyze a PCAP file with optional display filters.' The verb 'Analyze' and resource 'PCAP file' are specific. However, it does not distinguish from closely related sibling tools like analyze_large_pcap or deep_packet_analysis, which also analyze pcap files.
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 does not mention prerequisites, limitations, or give explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use context. Sibling tools like analyze_large_pcap or deep_packet_analysis exist but no differentiation is 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, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, fully covering safety and idempotency. The description adds no major behavioral details beyond mentioning it uses 'capinfos,' which is minor context.
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, consisting of two short sentences and an Args line. Every word is necessary, with 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?
The description covers the tool's purpose and parameter but omits details about the return value (e.g., what 'detailed capture file information' includes). Given no output schema, more specificity would improve completeness.
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 documents the only parameter 'file_path' with 'Path to PCAP/PCAPNG file,' which adds meaning beyond the schema (which has no description). Since schema coverage is 0%, the description compensates well.
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 'Get detailed capture file information using capinfos,' clearly identifying the action and resource. However, it does not distinguish itself from the similar sibling tool 'get_capture_file_info,' limiting 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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_capture_file_info' or 'get_packet_summary.' The description lacks any usage context, exclusions, or comparisons.
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, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, indicating safe read operation. The description adds the context of reading from a PCAP file and time-binning, but does not disclose details such as output format or any limitations beyond the schema.
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 sentence stating the purpose followed by clear parameter descriptions. Every element is necessary and front-loaded, with no redundant or extraneous content.
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 tool's input and purpose adequately for a simple read-only statistics tool with annotations. However, the absence of an output schema and lack of description of the return format (e.g., time bins, I/O metrics) leaves a gap. Considering the 0% schema coverage, the description partially compensates but not fully for output documentation.
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?
Despite 0% schema description coverage, the tool description explicitly explains each parameter: file_path as 'Path to PCAP/PCAPNG file', interval as 'Time interval in seconds for binning (positive number)', and display_filter as 'Optional Wireshark display filter'. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's type-only definitions, though it could clarify that interval is a string representing a number.
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 'Time-binned I/O statistics from a PCAP file' clearly states the verb (get) and resource (I/O statistics) with a specific qualifier (time-binned). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_conversation_stats and get_protocol_statistics by focusing on I/O, but does not explicitly differentiate or name alternatives.
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, no prerequisites, and no exclusion criteria. The sibling list is extensive but not referenced, leaving the agent to infer usage without context.
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 and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond the basic conversion operation. It does not clarify whether a new file is created or if the source is preserved, leaving ambiguity.
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 plus an argument list efficiently convey the purpose and parameters. The description is front-loaded with the essential verb and resource, with no superfluous text.
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 basic operation and parameters but lacks details on output file naming, error handling, or constraints. Given no output schema, more context would be beneficial.
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 coverage is 0%, but the description compensates by defining both parameters: filepath as the source path and output_format as the target format with allowed values. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema.
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 PCAP files between pcap and pcapng formats. The verb 'convert' and resource 'PCAP file' are specific, and the mention of both formats distinguishes it from sibling tools like merge or slice.
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. The description does not mention prerequisites, ideal use cases, or situations where other tools might be preferred.
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, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds no behavioral context beyond stating the tool 'reports differences'—what format, granularity, or side effects are not addressed.
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: two sentences plus argument list. The purpose is front-loaded. Every word is necessary, 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 simple diff tool, annotations cover safety. However, lacking an output schema, the description does not clarify what the report contains (e.g., textual diff, packet counts, summary). This leaves some uncertainty about expected output.
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?
All three parameters are described: filepath1 and filepath2 as paths to PCAP files, display_filter as an optional Wireshark display filter. Since the schema has no descriptions, these inline descriptions add essential 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 compares two PCAP files and reports differences. This distinguishes it from siblings like analyze_pcap_file or merge_pcap_files by specifying the comparative nature.
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. The description implies usage for comparing packet captures but lacks any 'when to use' or 'when not to use' 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 declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds minimal behavioral context (export from PCAP, not from other sources). It does not elaborate on limitations, side effects, or return behavior, but 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 front-loaded summary and a structured Args section. Each sentence adds value, though the Args section essentially repeats schema information. Overall efficient for a tool with three parameters.
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 exporting packets and the absence of an output schema, the description lacks details on the output format (JSON structure), limitations (e.g., file size, performance), and error handling. Annotations cover safety, but the description does not fully equip an agent to understand the tool's behavior and outputs.
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 description coverage is 0%, but the tool description provides brief yet clear explanations for each parameter (e.g., 'Path to PCAP/PCAPNG file', 'Wireshark display filter', 'Maximum packets to export'). This adds meaning beyond schema titles and types, though more detail (e.g., default behavior, format constraints) would improve completeness.
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 'export', the resource 'packets from a PCAP file', and the output format 'structured JSON'. It distinguishes the tool from siblings like export_packets_csv by specifying the JSON output format.
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 versus alternatives. It does not mention when not to use it, nor does it reference sibling tools like export_packets_csv or analyze_pcap_file. The usage is implied but not clarified.
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, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds specific behaviors: extracting DNS query names, types, response codes, and identifying potential DNS tunneling or suspicious patterns. This goes beyond the annotations by detailing the analysis performed.
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: two brief paragraphs and an Args list. Every sentence provides value, and the main purpose is front-loaded. No redundant or extraneous information is present.
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, so the description must explain return values. It mentions extracted fields and detection of patterns, giving a reasonable overview. However, it lacks details on output format (e.g., list, table) or structure, which would be helpful for an analysis tool. The annotations' openWorldHint suggests variable output, so the description is adequate but not complete.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the input schema provides no parameter descriptions. The description compensates fully by including an Args section with clear explanations: 'filepath: Path to PCAP/PCAPNG file' and 'max_queries: Maximum number of DNS rows to process'. This adds significant meaning beyond 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 clearly states 'Analyze DNS queries and responses from a PCAP file', specifying the action and resource. The name 'analyze_dns_traffic' is self-explanatory and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'analyze_http_traffic' or 'analyze_pcap_file', though it does not explicitly contrast them.
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 does not mention prerequisites, limitations, or context for use, leaving the agent to infer from the name 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 already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds no behavioral details beyond noting it queries 'feeds'. It is adequate but does not elaborate on side effects like API calls 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise: one sentence plus two bullet-style parameter lines. No wasted words, and the structure is front-loaded with the main action.
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 no output schema, the description should at least hint at the response format (e.g., threat score, categories) or prerequisites (e.g., API keys). It does neither, leaving the agent with incomplete context.
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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains that 'ip_address' is the IP to check and 'providers' is a comma-separated list with examples (urlhaus, abuseipdb). This adds meaning beyond the schema's bare titles, though more detail on IP format or allowed provider values would be better.
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 'Check an IP address against threat intelligence feeds', which is a specific verb+resource combination. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools that focus on network traffic capture/analysis, DNS, HTTP, etc.
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. It does not mention when not to use it, nor does it reference sibling tools like 'scan_capture_for_threats' or explain that this is for external IP addresses.
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, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. Description adds minor technical detail (tshark flags) but does not contradict annotations. No additional behavioral context (e.g., file handling, error cases).
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?
Description is concise (one short paragraph plus bullet-like Args). Every sentence adds value: purpose, technical context, and parameter details. No fluff, though could be more structured with examples.
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 rich annotations (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld) and no output schema, description covers purpose and parameters adequately. However, it lacks details on return format (e.g., file download), error handling, or prerequisites (e.g., tshark required). Suitable but not comprehensive.
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 description coverage is 0%, but the description's 'Args' section adds meaning: explains filepath, fields (with default), display_filter, and separator (with default). This compensates for schema gaps and clarifies parameter roles.
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 'Export packet fields from a PCAP as CSV with proper headers using tshark -E flags.' It specifies the action (export), resource (PCAP), output format (CSV), and technical context. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like export_packets_json.
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 vs alternatives. Sibling export_packets_json exists, but description lacks comparison or context for choosing CSV over JSON. Only parameter details are provided, not usage context.
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 indicate idempotence and non-destructiveness, but the description adds minimal behavioral context. It does not explain file overwrite behavior, error handling, or the effect of the 'chronological' flag beyond its basic definition.
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: one sentence for purpose followed by a simple Arg list. No redundant information, and the most important information appears first.
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 no output schema, the description adequately covers inputs and behavior for a straightforward merge operation. It lacks mention of return value (the created file) but is otherwise complete.
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 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining parameter semantics: filepaths are lists, output_file expects .pcap/.pcapng, chronological controls timestamp order. However, it could clarify that filepaths must be existing valid PCAP 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 action 'Merge multiple PCAP files into one' using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'diff_pcap_files' or 'analyze_pcap_file' by focusing solely on merging.
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. It does not mention prerequisites, limitations, or scenarios where other tools (e.g., 'diff_pcap_files') might 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 already indicate idempotent and non-destructive behavior. The description adds minimal extra context (e.g., 'uses editcap'), but does not elaborate on file creation or requirements for permissions. Given annotations, the description is adequate but provides little beyond the structured data.
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 front-loaded with the main purpose and then lists parameters concisely. Each parameter description is brief but informative. No superfluous text, though the parameter list is necessary given the number of parameters.
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 explains all parameters but does not mention what the tool returns or how to handle errors. Since there is no output schema, some explanation of output format or side effects would improve completeness. Still, the parameter descriptions are thorough.
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 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by listing each parameter and its meaning in the Args section (e.g., start_packet: first packet number to keep, start_time: keep packets after this time). This adds significant value beyond the bare schema.
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 'Slice or filter a PCAP file using editcap,' specifying the action (slice/filter) and resource (PCAP file). It effectively distinguishes the tool from siblings like merge_pcap_files or convert_pcap_format.
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 merge_pcap_files, analyze_pcap_file, or convert_pcap_format. There is no 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 description lists extracted fields, adding behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation. However, it does not discuss permissions, file size handling, or whether it modifies the file. Annotations already cover non-destructive and idempotent aspects.
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 concise (two sentences plus arg list), front-loaded with purpose, and contains no redundant 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 lists extracted fields but does not specify the output format or behavior for large files (sibling analyze_large_pcap exists). Given no output schema and multiple related tools, more context would improve completeness.
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?
Although schema description coverage is 0%, the description adds 'Path to PCAP/PCAPNG file' for the filepath parameter, clarifying acceptable formats. This compensates for the lack of schema 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 it analyzes HTTP traffic from a PCAP file and lists specific extracted fields (methods, hosts, URIs, etc.). This differentiates it from siblings like analyze_http_headers (headers only) and analyze_dns_traffic (different 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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as analyze_http_headers or analyze_pcap_file. The description only states what the tool does, not the context or prerequisites.
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 idempotentHint=true. The description adds behavioral context by explaining the return format options (verbose vs JSON) and hex dump inclusion, but does not disclose authentication needs, rate limits, or other side effects beyond what annotations cover.
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 concise and well-structured, with a single opening sentence and a clean list of arguments. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or fluff.
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 4 parameters, no output schema, and annotations present, the description covers parameter semantics but does not describe the return value structure or potential error conditions. It is adequate but lacks details on output format and prerequisites beyond the parameter list.
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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It provides brief but clear explanations for all four parameters: filepath (path to PCAP file), packet_number (1-based), verbose (return type), and hex_dump (include hex dump). This adds meaning beyond the schema titles.
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 decodes a single packet in full detail, specifying the verb (decode) and resource (single packet). It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_packet_summary by emphasizing 'full detail' and 'single packet'.
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 get_packet_summary or deep_packet_analysis. It lacks explicit context for when this tool is appropriate or when to choose other 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 indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows the tool is safe. The description adds that it 'detects and reports' but does not elaborate on behavior beyond what annotations imply. No contradiction 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is exceptionally concise: a single sentence for purpose followed by three bullet-point parameter definitions. Every sentence is necessary; no redundancy or fluff. The main 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 the tool's simplicity and the presence of annotations (safe, idempotent), the description adequately covers input but lacks details about output format (e.g., what 'report' means). It does not specify whether the tool returns a list of protocol names or a structured object, leaving room for ambiguity.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden. It provides clear, concise semantics for each parameter: filepath as path to PCAP, interface for live capture, duration for capture length. This adds meaning beyond the schema's type/default alone, though it omits details like file format or interface naming conventions.
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: 'Detect and report network protocols in use.' The verb ('detect and report') and resource ('network protocols') are specific and distinguish it from sibling tools that focus on analyzing particular protocols (e.g., analyze_dns_traffic) or other tasks (e.g., capture_live_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 explains that the tool accepts either a PCAP file or a live capture interface, but it provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not specify that this tool is for broad protocol detection while sibling tools like analyze_http_traffic are for deep inspection of a specific protocol.
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, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds basic behavioral context (produces diagrams) but does not go beyond that. 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?
The description is concise, with a front-loaded purpose statement and a structured Args section. It is efficient and clear, though the Args section could be integrated more naturally.
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 (4 params, no output schema), the description covers essential aspects: input parameters, output format options, and purpose. No missing critical details.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description fully compensates. It adds meaning to all four parameters: filepath (path to PCAP), flow_type (tcp or udp), max_flows (range 1-200), output_format (text or mermaid).
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 'Generate visual diagrams' and the resource 'network flows from a PCAP file'. It distinguishes from sibling analysis tools by focusing on visualization.
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 like follow_tcp_stream or analyze_http_traffic. The description does not mention conditions, 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?
Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint), the description adds key behavioral details: chunked processing, progress reporting via ctx, and optional display filter. However, it does not disclose what statistics are accumulated or output format.
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 and front-loaded with the main purpose, but includes an 'Args' section that largely repeats schema information, slightly reducing efficiency.
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 lacks details about return values or output, which is significant given no output schema. It mentions 'accumulating statistics' but not what statistics or how they are returned, leaving an information gap.
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 adds some meaning to parameters (e.g., filepath is a path, chunk_size is packets per chunk, display_filter is optional Wireshark filter) and introduces ctx (MCP context) not in schema, partially compensating for schema gaps.
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 analyzes large PCAP files in chunks for memory efficiency, differentiating it from similar tools like analyze_pcap_file by emphasizing chunked processing for large files.
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 use for large files ('for memory efficiency') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings like analyze_pcap_file, analyze_dns_traffic, etc., nor does it provide exclusions or alternatives.
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, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, indicating a safe, idempotent read operation. The description adds that the tool reconstructs a UDP conversation and allows output format selection (ascii, hex, raw), which gives concrete context beyond the annotations without contradiction.
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 sentence for purpose followed by a minimal parameter list. Every sentence adds value, and there is no extraneous information. The structure is front-loaded and easy to scan.
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 scalar parameters, no output schema) and rich annotations, the description covers the core function and parameter meanings adequately. It is missing details about the return format (e.g., does it return the stream as a string or save to a file?), but for a basic stream following tool, the information is nearly complete.
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 partially compensates by listing all three parameters and providing brief explanations: filepath (path to PCAP/PCAPNG file), stream_index (0-based index), and output_format (ascii, hex, or raw). However, it does not explain the return value or behavior in detail, falling short of the baseline expected for low 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 the tool reconstructs a UDP conversation from a PCAP file. It uses a specific verb ('reconstruct') and resource ('UDP conversation'), effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like follow_tcp_stream and other PCAP 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 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. The sibling list includes follow_tcp_stream, but the description does not explicitly recommend this for UDP streams or mention that TCP streams should use the sibling tool. No exclusions or prerequisites are 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 idempotentHint=true, so the tool's safety profile is clear. The description adds context about config files but does not disclose further behavioral traits like file system access or default locations.
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 concise sentence that front-loads the purpose with no wasted words. Every word earns its place.
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 read-only tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the basic functionality. It could mention the scope (all profiles), but is largely complete.
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, so the input schema provides no information. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description adds no parameter details because none are 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 lists available Wireshark profiles and their configuration files. It uses a specific verb and resource, and it distinguishes from sibling tools focused on analysis or capture.
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 only states what it does, without mentioning exclusions, 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?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds that the tool produces markdown tables and layer details, providing additional behavioral context beyond annotations. 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?
The description is front-loaded with the main purpose and then lists arguments efficiently. It is appropriately sized with no wasted sentences, though the argument format could be more compact.
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 the annotations cover safety and idempotency, the description adequately explains the tool's purpose and parameters. However, it does not describe the return value structure beyond 'markdown tables,' nor does it mention any other side effects. With no output schema, this leaves some ambiguity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Despite the context signal indicating 0% schema description coverage, the description actually explains all three parameters (file_path, count, display_filter) with clear meanings and examples (e.g., 'Path to PCAP/PCAPNG file'). This adds significant value over the bare schema, so the score is high.
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 deep packet analysis with protocol breakdown, layer details, and markdown tables. It uses specific verbs and resources, and while it doesn't explicitly distinguish from siblings, the focus on 'deep' and 'protocol breakdown' sets it apart from simpler analysis tools like analyze_pcap_file.
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. The description only lists arguments and does not mention prerequisites, limitations, or when not to use it. With many sibling tools for packet analysis, this lack of guidance could lead to incorrect 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 already indicate read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, and open-world. Description adds no extra behavioral details (e.g., file size limits, threat feed availability). Acceptable 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise: two sentences plus argument list. Front-loaded with main action, no wasted words.
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?
Does not describe return format or error cases. With no output schema, missing information on what the tool returns (list of IPs, threats found?). Adequate for simple tool but could be more complete.
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?
Description adds meaning beyond schema: specifies filepath expects PCAP/PCAPNG format, providers are comma-separated with example values (urlhaus, abuseipdb). Schema has 0% coverage, so description compensates well.
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 it extracts IPs from a PCAP file and checks against threat feeds. Distinct from siblings like check_ip_threat_intel (single IP) and analyze_pcap_file (general analysis).
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 when needing to scan a PCAP for threat intelligence, but no explicit guidance on when to use vs alternatives like check_ip_threat_intel or other capture analysis 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 and destructiveHint=false. The description adds no additional behavioral context beyond parameter details, which is adequate but not extra.
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 no wasted words, efficiently stating purpose and parameters.
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 retrieval tool with good annotations and clear parameters, the description is nearly complete. However, it omits the return value format (e.g., string), which could aid agents.
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 description coverage is 0%, but the description provides meaningful explanations for all three parameters (filepath, stream_index, format), compensating for the lack of 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 verb 'reconstruct' and resource 'TCP conversation from a PCAP file', distinguishing it from siblings like follow_udp_stream and list_tcp_streams.
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 explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., follow_udp_stream or list_tcp_streams). Usage is implied but not guided.
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 provide idempotentHint and destructiveHint. Description adds that output_dir is created if empty, but misses behavioral details like tshark dependency, overwriting policy, or return format. 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Description is two sentences plus a clear argument list. No filler, front-loaded purpose, efficient structure.
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; description lacks return value explanation. Also missing runtime dependencies (tshark) and default protocol value (http). Adequate but not fully complete for agent usage.
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 coverage is 0%, so description compensates by explaining file_path (PCAP/PCAPNG), protocol options (http, smb, dicom, imf, tftp), and output_dir (created if empty). Adds meaning absent from schema.
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 files from HTTP/SMB/DICOM/IMF/TFTP streams using tshark', providing a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like follow_tcp_stream and extract_credentials.
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 lists supported protocols and input/output parameters, implying when to use (file extraction from streams). However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use or alternatives among siblings.
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 idempotentHint=true, so the tool is safe. The description adds 'Extract' and 'Returns' but provides no additional behavioral details like error handling, file size constraints, or performance considerations.
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: two sentences and a parameter line. The first sentence immediately states the primary action, with no redundancy. Every part serves a clear purpose.
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?
While the description explains purpose and input, it lacks details on the return structure (e.g., format of warnings/errors/notes) and error conditions. For a tool with no output schema, this is a notable gap. It adequately covers the basic usage but not edge cases.
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 to the single parameter 'filepath' by stating it expects a 'Path to PCAP/PCAPNG file', which is not present in the input schema. This clarifies the expected file format, though it lacks details on path types (absolute/relative) or validation.
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 Wireshark expert information from a PCAP file, specifying the output includes warnings, errors, and notes. This directly distinguishes it from sibling tools like analyze_http_traffic or follow_tcp_stream by focusing on Wireshark's expert system.
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 suggests use cases 'for identifying protocol violations, malformed packets, etc.', providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly exclude other tools or mention when not to use it, such as for basic packet capture analysis.
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, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds that it uses column fields for output, but does not disclose additional behaviors such as rate limits or data size constraints. Provides marginal extra context.
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?
Description is concise: 3 sentences plus an Args list. Purpose is front-loaded, no fluff. Every sentence adds value.
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 3-param tool with no output schema, the description is mostly complete. The Wireshark analogy hints at return format. However, in context of many siblings, a brief note on when to prefer this over other summary tools would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 0% description coverage (no descriptions in properties), but the description explains all three parameters in an Args list, including default for count and optional nature of display_filter. Fully compensates for missing 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?
Description states 'Get a quick packet summary similar to Wireshark's packet list view', clearly specifying the verb (Get), resource (packet summary), and distinguishing it from sibling analysis/capture tools by referencing a common UI metaphor.
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 quick browsing via the Wireshark analogy but does not explicitly state when to use over siblings like analyze_pcap_file or when not to use. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.
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 and idempotentHint=true. The description adds context about specific extracted items (cookies, auth headers, suspicious headers) and mention of input file type, enhancing transparency without contradicting 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 concise and well-structured: a one-line summary, bullet list of extracted items, and parameter list. No unnecessary words, and the purpose is immediately clear.
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 and the presence of annotations, the description covers the core behavior and parameters. However, it lacks indication of the output format, which could be important for an agent to interpret results correctly.
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 coverage is 0%, so the description compensates by explaining both parameters: filepath is a path to a PCAP/PCAPNG file, and include_cookies indicates whether to include cookie analysis. The explanations are clear and add meaning beyond the bare schema.
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 function: 'Analyze HTTP headers from a PCAP file'. It specifies the resource (HTTP headers) and verb (analyze), and distinguishes from sibling tools like analyze_http_traffic and extract_credentials by focusing solely on headers and tokens.
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 explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the purpose implies usage for header analysis, no guidance is provided on scenarios such as when to use analyze_http_traffic or extract_credentials instead.
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 read-only and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by specifying the exact types of credentials and that Kerberos hashes are crackable, which is behavioral context 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?
The description is highly concise: a one-line summary, a targeted bullet list of credential types, and a clear Args section. Every sentence serves a purpose with no redundancy.
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 single parameter, rich annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the tool's purpose and input sufficiently. It could optionally mention output format, but the absence is not critical for a credential extraction tool.
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 input schema only defines 'filepath' as a string with no description. The tool description clarifies it expects a path to a PCAP/PCAPNG file, adding critical meaning beyond the schema's minimal type definition.
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 potential credentials from PCAP files, listing specific credential types (HTTP Basic Auth, FTP, Telnet, Kerberos). This differentiates it from sibling tools like analyze_http_traffic or follow_tcp_stream, which are more general.
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 use when credential extraction is needed but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use or comparisons with alternatives. Without this, an agent might not know to choose this over similar tools like analyze_http_traffic.
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, destructiveHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds context about reading from profiles/config but does not disclose additional behavioral traits beyond annotations. Satisfactory but not enhanced.
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, front-loading the purpose and clearly documenting the parameter in a structured Args section. No unnecessary words.
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 adequately explains the tool's function and parameter but lacks information about the return value (e.g., format of color filters). Since no output schema exists, this omission reduces completeness for a tool with one parameter.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The single parameter profile_name is fully documented in the description, including the effect of empty string. Schema coverage is 0%, so the description carries full burden and does so excellently.
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 'Read' and the resource 'Wireshark color filter rules' with source 'from a profile or the default config'. It distinguishes from sibling tools as none of them deal with color filter configuration.
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 implies when to use (to read color filters) but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives. Given no similar siblings, clarity is high but lacks explicit 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 provide readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, etc. Description adds context about the capture duration and default interface, disclosing behavioral traits 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?
Description is very concise, two sentences for purpose and use case, followed by parameter definitions. No fluff, every sentence earns its place.
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 capture tool with 2 optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, duration, default interface, and parameter semantics. Could mention output format but not critical.
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 0% schema description coverage, the description defines both parameters: interface as network interface name and packet_count as maximum packets, adding meaning beyond the schema's type 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?
Description uses specific verb 'Perform' with resource 'packet capture', specifies duration '3 seconds' and default interface, distinguishing it from sibling tools like capture_live_packets which likely have configurable settings.
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?
Description states it's a 'fast way to see what's happening without configuration', implying quick checks, but does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternatives among the many sibling 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 and idempotentHint, so the description is consistent. It adds the behavioral detail that filepath overrides ip_addresses when provided, which is useful but not extensive.
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 concise: two sentences plus two bullet-style lines for args. It front-loads the purpose and usage modes, with 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?
For a simple lookup tool with readOnlyHint, the description covers inputs and behavior. It does not mention output format, but that is often self-explanatory. With no output schema, it is adequately complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining ip_addresses as comma-separated IPs with an example and filepath as an optional PCAP file that overrides ip_addresses. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema.
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 looks up geographic information for IP addresses, with specific verb 'look up geographic information'. It distinguishes from siblings like analyze_pcap_file or check_ip_threat_intel by focusing on geographic lookup.
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 provides clear contexts: checking specific IPs or extracting from PCAP files. It does not explicitly state when not to use or compare to sibling tools, but the guidance is sufficient for most use cases.
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, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds the purpose, confirming it's a safe listing operation. No behavioral details beyond that are needed.
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 that conveys all necessary information without any 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?
The description is sufficient for a tool with no parameters and clear intent. It implies the output is a list of interfaces, which is adequate given no output schema. A bit more detail on the return format could improve it.
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?
There are no parameters, so the schema covers 100%. The description does not need to add parameter details. Baseline 4 for 0 params is appropriate.
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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('network interfaces') with clear context ('for packet capture'), distinguishing it from sibling tools that focus on capture or analysis.
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?
While no explicit when/when-not guidance is given, the context of sibling tools makes it obvious that this is a preparatory step before capture tools. Adding a note about when to use could push it to 5.
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 mark readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds behavioral context: it requires an NSS-format key log file, and optionally writes a decrypted pcapng file. 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?
Very concise: 6 sentences covering purpose, requirement, and parameters. Front-loaded with the core function. Every sentence 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?
For a tool with 3 simple parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers inputs, prerequisites, and optional output. No gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so description carries full burden. It explains each parameter: filepath (PCAP/PCAPNG), keylog_file (TLS key log), output_file (optional decrypted output). Provides meaning beyond bare types.
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 decrypts TLS/HTTPS traffic using an SSLKEYLOGFILE, with specific verb 'decrypt' and resource 'TLS traffic'. It distinguishes from siblings like analyze_http_traffic which handle unencrypted packets.
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?
It explains the requirement of a TLS key log file captured alongside traffic and offers two ways to provide it (env var or explicit parameter). It lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives, but the context is sufficient for agents.
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:

[![netmcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/cortexc0de/netmcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/cortexc0de/netmcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![netmcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/cortexc0de/netmcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/cortexc0de/netmcp)

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/cortexc0de/netmcp'

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