PNETLab MCP Server

stop_all

Stops all nodes in a lab, shutting down the entire topology with a single command.

Instructions

Stop all nodes in a 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": "stop_all"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`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

C2.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It only states the basic effect without disclosing behavioral traits such as whether the lab remains running, permission requirements, reversibility, or impact on connected nodes. Critical context for safe usage is missing.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is very concise at one sentence. While it does not waste words, it is too brief to convey necessary details. For a simple tool, minimalism is acceptable but here it omits important context, making it less effective.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (one parameter, multiple siblings, output schema present), the description is incomplete. It does not explain the return value (output schema), how the lab path is resolved, or differentiate from similar tools. Significant gaps remain.

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 a single parameter 'lab_path' with no description. The description does not elaborate on this parameter's format, purpose, or constraints. With 0% schema coverage, the description should compensate but fails to add any value beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'Stop all nodes in a lab' clearly states the action and resource. However, it does not differentiate from siblings like 'stop_lab' (which may stop the entire lab) or 'stop_node' (specific node). The verb and resource are specific, but lack distinguishing context.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For instance, it does not clarify when to use 'stop_all' instead of 'stop_lab' or 'stop_node', nor does it mention prerequisites or side effects like lab state after stopping all nodes.

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