PNETLab MCP Server

create_lab

Create a new network-emulation lab and set it as the active session for building topologies.

Instructions

Create a new lab and open it as the active session lab.

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": {
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "create_lab"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`body`	No
`name`	Yes
`path`	No	/
`author`	No
`version`	No	1
`description`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 10, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It only states creation and activation but omits critical behavioral details like whether it overwrites existing labs, error handling, or required permissions. 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.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Single sentence, no unnecessary words. Front-loaded with core action and side effect. 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?

Despite having an output schema, the description does not explain return values or side effects beyond opening the lab. Parameter descriptions are entirely missing. Given the tool's complexity (6 params, output schema), the description is incomplete.

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 description does not mention any parameter. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema fields, which have no descriptions either. For a tool with 6 parameters, this is a critical 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?

Description clearly states the tool creates a new lab and opens it as the active session, with a specific verb and resource. It differentiates from siblings like clone_lab and open_lab by including the side effect of opening the lab.

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 clone_lab or open_lab. Does not mention prerequisites, constraints, or typical scenarios.

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