VERDICT

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

network_search

Extract specific network fields from packet captures using Wireshark display filters to test hypotheses during DFIR investigations.

Instructions

Targeted tshark extraction to test a specific hypothesis. display_filter is a Wireshark display filter; fields is a list of field names to extract. Example: display_filter="http.cookie", fields=["frame.number","ip.src","http.cookie"].

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "pcap": "<pcap>",
      "display_filter": "<display_filter>",
      "fields": "<fields>"
    },
    "name": "network_search"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`pcap`	Yes
`display_filter`	Yes
`fields`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jun 14, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations provided; description only says it's an extraction. Does not disclose performance, read-only nature, or limitations (e.g., pcap size). Adequate but lacks depth.

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 example; no wasted words. Front-loaded with purpose.

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 3 required params and output schema exists, description covers main params and gives example. Could include more on typical use cases or limitations but is reasonably 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 coverage is 0% but description explains display_filter as a Wireshark filter and fields as a list of field names, with an example. Adds significant meaning beyond the schema, though pcap parameter is not elaborated (but obvious).

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 targeted tshark extraction to test a specific hypothesis, differentiating it from sibling tools like network_overview (general overview) and protocol-specific extractions (network_dns, network_http). The example further clarifies.

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 testing a specific hypothesis but does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool or mention alternatives. No when-not-to-use guidance.

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