packmate-mcp

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v0.1.1
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool targets a distinct action on a specific resource: patterns, services, streams, packets, pcap control, and favorites. There is no overlap or ambiguity between tools like create_pattern and update_pattern.
Naming Consistency4/5
Tools generally follow a verb_noun pattern (create_pattern, delete_service, list_streams), with a few deviations like pcap_start (noun_verb) and pattern_lookback (noun_lookback). Overall consistent with minor exceptions.
Tool Count4/5
With 16 tools, the set is slightly over the typical 3-15 range but still well-scoped for network traffic analysis, covering CRUD for patterns and services, stream/packet retrieval, pcap control, and favorites.
Completeness4/5
Core workflows are covered: managing patterns and services, browsing streams, retrieving packets, and controlling pcap files. Minor gaps include lack of pcap_stop or stream deletion, but most use cases are supported.
Average 3.5/5 across 16 of 16 tools scored. Lowest: 2.3/5.
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 May 13, 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?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It only repeats the operation without disclosing effects like irreversibility, cascading deletions, or permission requirements. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (two words) but it is under-specified. While brief, it lacks crucial context that would help an agent, making it too minimal to be truly helpful.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool is a deletion operation with one parameter and an output schema, the description should explain return values, side effects, and how it differs from sibling tools like 'update_pattern' or 'create_pattern'. The single sentence fails to provide any of this context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no meaning to the 'pattern_id' parameter. It does not explain what a pattern ID is or how to obtain it, so the description fails to compensate for the missing schema documentation.
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 the verb 'Delete' and the resource 'a pattern', clearly indicating the tool's action. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete_service' or 'update_pattern', but the operation is distinct enough given the resource name.
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, or what prerequisites are needed. There is no mention of checking if a pattern exists or what happens on deletion.
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 are absent, so description carries full burden. It only states 'delete' without disclosing cascading effects, irreversibility, or permission requirements.
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?
Extremely concise single sentence (7 words), but at the cost of crucial details. Could be expanded without losing efficiency.
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 output schema present but no description of return value, and low schema coverage, the description fails to provide completeness for safe usage. Additional context about post-delete state is needed.
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%, and description adds no meaning beyond the schema's parameter name and type. No format, range, or valid values for 'port' are provided.
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?
Description explicitly states deletion of a service identified by port, distinguishing from sibling tools like create_service and update_service. However, it does not clarify uniqueness or outcomes for missing ports.
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 update_service or list_services. No prerequisites or conditions for deletion are mentioned.
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?
With no annotations, the description bears the burden. It discloses partial update behavior ('Only provided fields are changed'), which is helpful. But it omits other behavioral traits like permission requirements, effect on other service properties, or response details.
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?
Two short sentences with no redundancy. It is concise, but could include more contextual information 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 the tool has 7 parameters, an output schema, and several sibling tools, the description is too minimal. It lacks information about return values, constraints, or when to prefer this over create/delete, making it incomplete for reliable use.
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 description coverage is 0%, yet the description adds no specific meaning to any of the 7 parameters. It only states a general update behavior, leaving the agent to infer semantics from parameter names alone, which may be ambiguous for fields like 'merge_adjacent_packets'.
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?
Clearly states verb 'Update' and resource 'service', and mentions partial field update. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like create_service or delete_service, missing an opportunity to clarify scope.
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 create_service or delete_service. No mentions of prerequisites, exclusions, or 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?
The description discloses that only provided fields are changed, which is a key behavioral trait. However, with no annotations, it lacks details on idempotency, permissions, error handling, or side effects.
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, front-loaded with the core action and a key nuance. Every word earns its place.
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 tool with 8 parameters, no schema descriptions, and no annotations, the description is too brief. It leaves out important context about what a pattern is, enum meanings, and return values (though output schema exists).
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 description coverage is 0%, but the description only adds that optional fields are changed if provided. It does not explain individual parameters, enum values, or constraints 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 the tool updates a pattern and specifies partial update behavior. However, it does not distinguish from sibling tools like update_service beyond the different resource.
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 create_pattern, delete_pattern, or update_service. It only implies usage when modifying an existing pattern.
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?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It explains that IGNORE deletes matching streams and describes the meaning of search_type and direction_type. However, it does not mention whether the tool is idempotent, what happens if a pattern with the same name already exists, or any authorization requirements.
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, using a short paragraph and inline explanations for each enum. It is front-loaded with purpose and then parameter details. However, a bulleted list could improve readability and scannability.
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 output schema exists (not shown), the description omits important context such as the purpose of name/value, potential errors, and how this tool fits into the broader workflow (e.g., after creating a service). It is adequate for a straightforward create operation but not fully 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?
The description adds meaning for action_type, search_type, direction_type, and service_port, which are 4 of 7 parameters. The required parameters name and value are left entirely unexplained, and color is also absent. Given the schema coverage signal of 0%, this is a partial but valuable addition.
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 creates a pattern and explains the key parameters that define the pattern behavior. However, it does not distinguish this from similar tools like update_pattern, which could cause confusion about when to create versus update.
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 its siblings (e.g., update_pattern, set_pattern_enabled). There is no mention of prerequisites, conflicts, or typical use cases, making it hard for an agent to decide appropriately.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the generic action without describing any traits like pagination, ordering, or side effects.
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?
A single, efficient sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource.
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 list tool with no parameters and an output schema, the description is adequate but minimal. It does not specify ordering, scope (e.g., all services vs user-specific), or if the list is dynamic.
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 input schema has no parameters and description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the 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 uses a clear verb 'List' and specific resource 'configured Packmate services', distinguishing it from sibling list tools like list_patterns and list_streams.
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 (e.g., list_patterns, list_streams). The agent has no context for 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the key behavioral trait that Packmate returns 200 even for non-existent stream IDs (no row updated). This is helpful, but it does not detail other behaviors like whether the operation is reversible or what happens on success when the stream exists.
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. The first sentence states the purpose, the second provides a critical behavioral note. No wasted words or redundancy. It is well-structured and 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 that there is an output schema (not shown), the description does not explain the return value. It covers the basic purpose and an important edge case, but lacks full context like prerequisites, authentication, or expected output. For a simple mutation with two parameters, it is adequate but not 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?
Schema description coverage is 0% as the input schema only has titles, no descriptions. The description does not explain the parameters beyond their names and the tool's global purpose. For instance, stream_id and favorite are not further clarified (e.g., which stream, what true/false means). The description adds minimal value over 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 'Mark or unmark a stream as favorite' clearly states the verb (mark/unmark) and resource (stream favorite status). It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_streams or get_stream that are read-only. However, it could be more precise about the effect (e.g., sets the favorite flag to the given boolean).
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 includes a note about the tool returning 200 even if the stream ID does not exist, which provides some usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or any prerequisites. Usage is implied by the action of setting a favorite.
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It says 'apply a pattern' but does not clarify whether this is a read or write operation, what side effects exist, or what the output looks like. Output schema exists but is not described.
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 two sentences and front-loaded with the main action. It could be slightly more efficient, but it is well-structured for quick understanding.
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 context of sibling tools and lack of annotations, the description covers the tool's purpose and a use case but falls short on behavioral details. It is adequate for a basic understanding but not fully comprehensive.
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 meaning for 'minutes' by explaining the time range. 'pattern_id' is implied as the pattern to apply, but the description does not directly define it. Some value is added beyond the raw 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?
Description clearly states 'Apply a pattern to streams captured in the last N minutes', specifying verb and resource, and adds a usage scenario. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like create_pattern or update_pattern.
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 a clear use case: 'Useful after creating a new pattern to retroactively scan recent traffic.' This tells the agent when to use the tool, though it lacks explicit exclusions or alternatives.
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It states the core effect but does not mention idempotency, side effects (e.g., does it trigger any actions?), or error conditions. It is minimally 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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the essential purpose without any fluff. Every word 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?
For a simple toggle tool, the description combined with the schema and output schema (present) is functional. However, the lack of parameter semantics and usage guidelines means an agent might misunderstand edge cases or fail to use it correctly in sequences.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, yet the description does not add any meaning to the parameters (pattern_id, enabled). The agent receives no guidance on what values are valid or how they affect behavior beyond the schema 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 action (enable/disable) and the resource (pattern), and it distinguishes from the sibling tool 'delete_pattern' by noting 'without deleting it'.
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 when to use (versus delete_pattern) but does not provide explicit guidance on when to enable vs. disable, or any prerequisites or alternatives like 'update_pattern' which might also modify pattern state.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Create a new service', indicating a write operation, but does not mention side effects, authorization requirements, idempotency, or output behavior. The description is insufficient for a mutation tool.
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 two sentences, with no fluff. The first sentence states the core action, and the second provides targeted, actionable guidance. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.
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 are 7 parameters, no schema descriptions, no annotations, and an output schema exists (but not described), the description is incomplete. It does not explain what a service is, what effects creation has, what the output contains, or how to handle other parameters. It only addresses the HTTP/binary distinction.
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 the description should compensate. It adds meaning to three parameters (urldecode_http_requests, merge_adjacent_packets, http) by explaining when to enable them. However, it does not cover other parameters like name, port, decrypt_tls, or parse_web_sockets, leaving 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 'Create a new service', specifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like update_service and delete_service. The additional guidance on HTTP-like vs binary services provides specific context, making the purpose highly clear.
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 explicitly advises when to enable certain parameters ('For HTTP-like services, enable... For binary services, leave them off.'), guiding the agent on parameter selection. However, it does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., update_service) or mention prerequisites.
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?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states it lists patterns, lacking details on behavior such as pagination, ordering, or whether deleted patterns are included.
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?
Single clear sentence with parenthetical, 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?
Minimally adequate for a parameter-free list tool with output schema, but could mention that it returns all patterns or how it differs from list_services.
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 schema coverage is 100%. Baseline for 0 params is 4; description adds no param info because none 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 verb 'List' and resource 'patterns', with a parenthetical '(highlight + ignore)' that distinguishes it from other pattern tools like create_pattern or delete_pattern.
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 viewing all patterns but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_services or pattern_lookback.
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It only states a simple check; it does not disclose side effects (likely none), potential errors, or what happens if processing hasn't started. The minimal description leaves behavioral 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?
A single sentence that conveys the essential purpose without excess. Every word earns its place; 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 tool has an output schema but the description does not reference it or hint at the return structure. For a zero-parameter tool, the description is adequate but minimal; it could mention that the output indicates boolean status or provide a typical response example.
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 zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter details, but as per guidelines, 0 parameters defaults to baseline 4. No additional explanation 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?
Description clearly states the tool checks whether pcap-file processing has started, with a specific mode restriction (FILE mode only). It distinguishes from sibling tools like pcap_start or get_packets.
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 a context ('FILE mode only') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor when not to use it. No exclusion criteria or prerequisites are mentioned.
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?
With no annotations, the description discloses silent ignore behavior and a note on failure. However, it lacks details on success behavior, idempotency, or side effects, leaving room for improvement.
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 two sentences with no extraneous information. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently covers key behavioral notes.
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 covers purpose and basic usage, it lacks detail on the output (note structure or success behavior) and whether the tool is idempotent. Given the presence of an output schema, this information would enhance 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?
There are no parameters, so the description need not add parameter info. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description is adequate.
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: 'Begin processing the configured pcap file (FILE mode only).' This specifies the action, resource, and constraint, distinguishing it from sibling tools like pcap_status.
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 explains that the call is silently ignored outside FILE mode, indicating when not to use it. It also suggests following up with pcap_status and mentions a note on failure, providing clear context for use.
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the pagination behavior, the return format (packets and content), and that it is a read operation. It does not disclose any potential side effects or authorization needs, but the transparency is adequate for a read tool.
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 three sentences, each adding essential information: purpose, usage context, and return format. No fluff, front-loaded with the primary function.
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 5 parameters and an output schema (not shown but indicated), the description covers pagination and return format. However, it does not describe the metadata fields or the variety of content_format options. It is fairly complete but could be more thorough.
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 the description must add meaning. It explains the purpose of starting_from for scrolling, but skips details on stream_id, page_size, content_format, and max_bytes_per_packet. The description adds some value but not enough for all 5 parameters.
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 reads a page of packets from a stream and distinguishes it from the sibling get_stream by specifying when to use it (large streams or scrolling past first page). The verb 'read' and resource 'packets' are specific, and the scope is explained.
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 explicitly says to use this tool instead of get_stream when a stream is too large or need to scroll past the first page, and explains pagination using starting_from. It does not provide explicit exclusions or elaborate on when not to use, but the context is clear.
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?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the return format (metadata + formatted content), the effect of content_format parameter, and importantly explains that the three max_ parameters cap output to fit LLM context, with actionable advice. It does not discuss error handling or performance, but for a read tool this is acceptable.
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 very concise: two short paragraphs. The first sentence front-loads the purpose and return format. The second paragraph efficiently explains the parameters. 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.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 5 parameters, no schema descriptions, and an output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, output structure, parameter roles and default values, and even usage guidance for context windows. The output schema exists, so return value details are handled elsewhere.
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 describes stream_id as required, enumerates content_format options (including 'transcript' default), and explains the three max_ parameters' purpose (capping output for LLM context) with guidance to adjust. 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 'Get one stream by id with its packets pre-formatted', specifying the verb (get), resource (stream), and unique output format. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_streams (which lists metadata) and get_packets (likely raw packets).
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: retrieving a single stream's metadata and formatted content. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives like get_packets or list_streams, nor does it mention any prerequisites or context. The guidance on widening/narrowing max parameters is helpful but not about tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Despite no annotations, the description clearly explains the sorting order (newest first) and pagination mechanism. It also describes the effect of each parameter on the returned streams, adding significant value beyond the empty schema descriptions.
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 clear main sentence followed by bullet points explaining each parameter. Every line 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?
Given the output schema exists (and is not shown), the description appropriately focuses on input and behavior. It covers most aspects, though missing page_size and lack of error handling are minor gaps.
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 explains 4 of the 5 parameters (port, starting_from, favorites, pattern_id) but omits page_size. With 0% schema coverage, it should cover all parameters; the omission leaves a gap.
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 'List streams (newest first)', using a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on listing multiple streams with filtering options.
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?
The description provides explicit guidance for each parameter: port restricts to a service, starting_from is for pagination, favorites filters, pattern_id matches patterns. It also suggests combining with create_pattern and pattern_lookback for retroactive search.
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:

[![packmate-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/umbra2728/packmate-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/umbra2728/packmate-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![packmate-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/umbra2728/packmate-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/umbra2728/packmate-mcp)

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/umbra2728/packmate-mcp'

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