Skip to main content
Glama

Build nested field hierarchy

arkime_spigraphhierarchy
Read-only

Build a nested top-N hierarchy across Arkime fields for treemap drill-down analysis. Returns a nested value tree matching the SPI-graph hierarchy view.

Instructions

Build a nested top-N hierarchy across Arkime fields (a treemap / drill-down).

    Returns a nested hierarchy (level 1 -> its top level-2 values -> ...),
    matching Arkime's SPI-graph hierarchy view. Unlike malcolm_aggregate's
    flat multi-field buckets and arkime_multiunique's flat tuple list, the
    result is nested. For a single field plus a time graph use
    arkime_spigraph; for a source/destination graph use arkime_connections.
    Returns the raw Arkime spigraph-hierarchy response (nested value tree).
    

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
fieldsYesComma-separated Arkime fields defining the hierarchy levels in order, e.g. "source.ip,destination.ip,destination.port".
time_toNoEnd time as EPOCH SECONDS (NOT a dateparser string). Empty = now.
time_fromNoStart time as EPOCH SECONDS (NOT a dateparser string). Empty = Arkime's recent-only default.
expressionNoOptional Arkime expression syntax to scope the data. Empty = all sessions.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint and destructiveHint; description adds that it returns raw Arkime spigraph-hierarchy response. 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 relatively concise and front-loaded, but could be slightly more streamlined.

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 good annotations and output schema, the description is complete enough. It explains nesting and return format.

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 100%, so parameters are well-documented. Description adds overall context about hierarchy levels but does not repeat parameter details.

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 builds a nested top-N hierarchy for treemap/drill-down, and explicitly distinguishes from siblings like arkime_spigraph, arkime_connections, and arkime_multiunique.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It provides explicit when-to-use by contrasting with flat alternatives and mentions specific alternatives for single-field time graphs and source/destination graphs.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

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/nagameTW/mcp-server-malcolm'

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