PNETLab MCP Server

export_config

Save a running node's live configuration into its startup configuration to persist changes after a wipe or reopen. Use node_id=0 to export all running nodes simultaneously.

Instructions

Save a RUNNING node's live running-config into its stored startup-config (PNETLab 'Export CFG'), so changes made on the device (write mem) survive a wipe/reopen. The node must be running. Pass node_id=0 to export ALL running nodes at once. Also refreshes what get_node_config returns.

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": "export_config"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`node_id`	No
`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?

With no annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: the node must be running, node_id=0 exports all, and it refreshes get_node_config. It implies the operation overwrites startup config, but could explicitly mention destructive nature.

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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose, each sentence adds meaningful information without redundancy or fluff.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description is adequate for a 2-param tool with output schema, but missing description of the required lab_path parameter. It covers the main functionality and special uses, but the lab_path omission is a notable gap.

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% per signal. Description adds value for node_id (explaining the effect of 0), but lab_path is required and not described at all, leaving a gap in understanding the parameter.

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 saves a running config to startup config, using specific verb 'save' and resource 'running config to startup config'. It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning PNETLab 'Export CFG' and refreshing get_node_config.

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?

The description specifies when to use (to persist changes, node must be running) and provides a special case (node_id=0 for all nodes). It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the context is clear.

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