PNETLab MCP Server

delete_folder

Delete a workspace folder and all its contents irreversibly. Blocked if any lab in the folder is currently running.

Instructions

Delete a workspace folder AND everything inside it (irreversible). Blocked with 'error_folder_running' if any lab under it is running.

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": {
      "folder_path": "<folder_path>"
    },
    "name": "delete_folder"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`folder_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

Behavior4/5

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

Despite no annotations, description discloses irreversibility, recursive deletion, and a blocking condition (error_folder_running). This covers key behavioral traits for a destructive operation.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with key information: action, effect, irreversibility, and blocking condition. No unnecessary words.

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?

Description covers essential behavior and constraints. With an output schema present, return values are presumably documented. Could add details on required permissions, but overall complete for a deletion tool.

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?

Only parameter folder_path has no additional explanation beyond the schema. Schema description coverage is 0%, but description does not add format, examples, or constraints. Baseline 2 as it fails to compensate.

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 identifies the action (delete) and resource (workspace folder), and emphasizes irreversibility and recursive deletion. Distinguishes from siblings like delete_lab and delete_node.

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?

Provides a condition when the operation is blocked (any lab running), but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like move_lab or create_folder. It implies caution but no direct when-not.

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