PNETLab MCP Server

delete_node

Remove a node and its links from a lab. Use before re-wiring neighbors to avoid losing interface bindings. Node ID and lab path required.

Instructions

Delete a single node from a lab (and its links). Prefer deleting a node BEFORE re-wiring its neighbors — on PNETLab, editing links after the fact can drop interface bindings. Use get_lab to find the node_id.

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": {
      "lab_path": "<lab_path>",
      "node_id": "<node_id>"
    },
    "name": "delete_node"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`node_id`	Yes
`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

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Discloses that deletion includes links ('and its links'), warns about interface binding issues if order is wrong. No annotations present, so description carries full burden. Lacks details on reversibility or side effects on connected nodes.

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?

Three focused sentences. Each sentence adds distinct value: purpose, usage tip, prerequisite location. No redundancy or fluff.

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?

Covers core behavior and a key usage tip. Does not mention return values (though output schema exists), error conditions, or idempotency. Adequate for a simple delete tool but leaves some ambiguity.

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 provides no parameter descriptions (0% coverage). The description does not explain the meaning or format of lab_path or node_id beyond implying node_id is an identifier. This forces the agent to infer meaning from context alone.

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: 'Delete a single node from a lab (and its links).' It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from siblings like delete_lab and wipe_node. No ambiguity.

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?

Provides a explicit order-of-operations recommendation: 'Prefer deleting a node BEFORE re-wiring its neighbors' with a rationale about interface bindings. Also directs to use get_lab to find node_id. However, does not contrast with alternative tools like disconnect_nodes or wipe_node.

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