PNETLab MCP Server

get_node_status

Retrieve a node's status (stopped, building, running), console URL, and interface details by providing the lab path and node ID.

Instructions

Get a node's status (0=stopped,1=building,2=running), console URL, and interfaces.

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": "get_node_status"
  }
}

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

B3.1/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

The description reveals what data is returned (status, console URL, interfaces) but does not discuss behavioral aspects like whether it requires the lab to be running, authentication needs, or error responses. With no annotations, more detail would improve transparency.

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?

Single sentence, 16 words, directly communicates the core purpose and key outputs. No wasted words.

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

Completeness2/5

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

While the tool has an output schema, the description omits crucial context: parameter semantics, usage prerequisites, and behavioral details. For a two-parameter tool, this leaves significant gaps in understanding.

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

Parameters1/5

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

The input schema has 0% description coverage, and the tool description provides no explanation of the parameters (node_id, lab_path). The agent has no context on what values to provide for these required fields.

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 gets a node's status, including specific status codes (0,1,2), console URL, and interfaces. It uses a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like 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 Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, no context about typical use cases. The description does not help the agent decide between get_node_status and sibling tools like start_node or stop_node.

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