PNETLab MCP Server

rename_lab

Change the name of a PNETLab lab by renaming its .unl file. Provide the lab path and the new name (without .unl).

Instructions

Rename a lab (changes its .unl filename). PNETLab sanitizes the new name (special characters are stripped). Pass the new name without .unl.

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>",
      "new_name": "<new_name>"
    },
    "name": "rename_lab"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`lab_path`	Yes
`new_name`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 10, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Despite no annotations, the description adds behavioral detail: PNETLab sanitizes names by stripping special characters, and the new name must be passed without .unl extension. However, it does not mention potential side effects, permissions, or whether the lab must be stopped.

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 concise sentences. First states purpose, second provides critical usage detail. No unnecessary words.

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?

Description covers core rename action and a key behavior (sanitization), but omits error conditions, return values (though output schema exists), and prerequisites like lab existence or state. Acceptable for a simple operation but not thorough.

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 description coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It adds meaning to 'new_name' (omit .unl extension) but provides no guidance on 'lab_path' format (e.g., full path or relative). Only one of two parameters gets partial clarification.

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?

Description clearly states the tool renames a lab by changing its .unl filename, which is a specific verb-resource pair. It distinguishes itself from siblings like clone_lab or move_lab by focusing on renaming behavior.

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 vs alternatives like move_lab or clone_lab. No context about prerequisites or scenarios where renaming is appropriate.

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