PNETLab MCP Server

disconnect_nodes

Remove a network link from a node's interface, disconnecting both ends of a point-to-point connection. Specify the lab, node, and interface to delete the underlying network.

Instructions

Remove the link on a node's interface (deletes the underlying network). For a point-to-point link this disconnects BOTH ends, so you only pass one side. Interface may be an index or an 'e0/1'-style name (IOL 0/16/32/48). Use get_lab to see which interfaces are connected.

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>",
      "node_interface": "<node_interface>"
    },
    "name": "disconnect_nodes"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`node_id`	Yes
`lab_path`	Yes
`node_interface`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 10, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool deletes underlying network and for point-to-point disconnects both ends. Lacks details on permissions or reversibility but is informative.

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 concise sentences with front-loaded main action. No redundant information; every sentence adds value.

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 key behavioral details, usage guidance, and parameter format. Output schema exists but is not shown; description does not need to duplicate it. Missing only minor safety notes, but overall complete.

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%, so description must add value. It explains that node_interface can be an index or style name (e0/1, IOL formats). However, lab_path and node_id receive no additional semantics beyond property names.

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 verb 'remove' and resource 'link on a node's interface' with the added nuance of deleting the underlying network. It distinguishes from sibling tools like connect_nodes by specifying the disconnection behavior.

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 context: when to use (to disconnect), special case for point-to-point links (only pass one side), and suggests using get_lab to see connected interfaces. Lacks explicit 'when not to use' but is adequate.

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