Loading ToolBench
MCP server for trustworthy Wireshark and tshark packet analysis
Wireshark MCP demonstrates solid engineering with 23 well-named tools covering packet analysis workflows. All tools have descriptions and input schemas with type definitions. Tool annotations (readOnlyHint/destructiveHint/openWorldHint) are correctly applied via tool_annotations.py. However, output schemas are not documented in the evaluable source, parameter descriptions lack depth regarding formats/constraints, and error handling guidance is absent. The server follows good naming conventions (wireshark_<action>) and achieves consistency across the toolchain. Average tool description length ~80 chars, which is on the lean side of acceptable but generally clear. Parameter descriptions exist but many lack constraint details (e.g., 'Wireshark display filter (optional)' without format hints or examples of valid syntax).
Full-capture aggregation and grouping with top-K results, distinct counts, and numeric summaries
Live packet capture from a network interface using dumpcap or tshark
Get metadata and summary information about a capture file
Analyze conversations between hosts in a capture
Analyze DNS queries and responses in a capture
Remove duplicate packets from a capture file
Split a capture file into multiple files by packet count or file size
Output schemas not documented. LLMs cannot predict which fields will be returned from tools like wireshark_aggregate, wireshark_extract, or wireshark_protocol_summary. This forces agents to guess structure, reducing chaining confidence and increasing token waste.
Parameter descriptions lack constraint specifications. Examples: 'Wireshark display filter (optional)' does not explain valid filter syntax or give examples; 'Comma-separated fields to extract' lacks guidance on valid field names; 'Start time in ISO 8601 format or seconds since epoch' is vague about which is preferred.
Inferred effective spec: 2026-07-28+.
| Scored | Grade | Overall | Spec posture | Rubric |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-09-22 | B | 72 | 2026-07-28+ | v2 |
| 2026-03-09 | D | 56 | - | v1 |
Shift packet timestamps in a capture file
Trim a capture file to a time range
List unique endpoints (IP addresses, MAC addresses, etc.) in a capture
Export objects from packets (HTTP files, FTP files, email attachments, etc.)
Extract packet data with pagination and filtering
Extract and export individual frames from a capture file
Save a display filter to a file for reuse
Perform GeoIP lookups on IP addresses in packets
Analyze HTTP requests and responses in a capture
Merge multiple packet capture files
Entry-point tool that recommends the most relevant analysis tools for a given capture file
Get protocol distribution and summary statistics from a capture
Follow TCP/UDP/SSL streams in a capture
Convert ASCII or hex dump into a packet capture file
Analyze TLS/SSL certificates and handshakes in a capture
Scan packets with YARA rules
No error recovery guidance. Tools lack descriptions of what errors are retryable, what user actions can fix them, or how to recover. For example, if wireshark_extract fails with 'invalid display filter', the agent has no guidance on correcting the filter syntax.
Result limits not specified in tool descriptions. Tools like wireshark_extract, wireshark_aggregate, and wireshark_endpoints do not state a maximum result count or pagination behavior. Without this, agents may request unbounded results, exhausting context or timing out.
Some descriptions are under 50 characters and lack actionable detail. Examples: 'Analyze conversations between hosts in a capture' (49 chars) does not explain when to use this vs other protocol analysis tools; 'List unique endpoints' (21 chars) does not indicate output structure or use case.