PNETLab MCP Server

download_lab

Export a lab as a .zip backup file and save it locally. Specify the lab path and optional save location.

Instructions

Export a lab to a .zip backup and save it to a local file. Pass save_path as a file or directory (defaults to the current directory). Returns the saved path. Round-trips with upload_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": {
      "lab_path": "<lab_path>"
    },
    "name": "download_lab"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`lab_path`	Yes
`save_path`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 10, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations provided; description carries full burden. It discloses the export action, file saving, and return value, but lacks details on side effects, overwriting behavior, or permissions required. Adequate but not thorough.

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 sentences, no wasted words, front-loaded with key action and parameter guidance. Extremely concise and structured well.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity and presence of output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, parameters, return, and relationship to upload_lab. Minor gap: no information on error handling or input validation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds meaning by explaining save_path (file/directory, defaults to current dir) and implies lab_path is the lab to export. Could be more explicit about lab_path format, but generally helpful.

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 tool exports a lab to a .zip backup and saves it locally. It also mentions round-trips with upload_lab, providing context and differentiation from siblings.

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?

The description implies usage for backup (round-trip with upload_lab) but does not explicitly state when to use or avoid this tool versus alternatives like clone_lab or export_config. It gives some guidance on save_path parameters.

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