PNETLab MCP Server

clone_lab

Duplicate an existing network lab with all topology and configurations to create a template or base for multiple labs.

Instructions

Clone an existing lab into the same folder under a new name (copies the whole topology + configs). Great for templating — duplicate a base lab N times. 'name' is the clone's new name (no .unl needed).

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": {
      "source_lab_path": "<source_lab_path>",
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "clone_lab"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	Yes
`source_lab_path`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 10, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses key behavior: clones with topology and configs. However, it does not mention what happens if a lab with the same name exists or other 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?

The description is concise and front-loaded. Every sentence adds value without unnecessary wording.

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 low complexity and presence of an output schema, the description is largely adequate but could be improved by documenting the 'source_lab_path' parameter and clarifying overwrite behavior.

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% (no descriptions in schema), so description must compensate. It explains that 'name' is the clone's new name and need not include '.unl', but does not describe 'source_lab_path' at all.

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 clones a lab, copying topology and configs. It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_lab, which creates new empty labs, and rename_lab, which renames rather than copies.

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 mentions templating use case ('Great for templating — duplicate a base lab N times'), providing clear context for when to use. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives.

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