PNETLab MCP Server

stop_node

Stop a single node in a PNETLab lab by specifying its lab path and node ID. Halts the device without interrupting other nodes in the topology.

Instructions

Stop a single node 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>",
      "node_id": "<node_id>"
    },
    "name": "stop_node"
  }
}

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

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether stopping a node is safe, reversible, or affects other lab components. The simple verb 'stop' leaves uncertainty.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is very short (one sentence) with no wasted words. However, it could be improved by adding brief parameter context without becoming lengthy.

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?

For a simple stop action, the description is acceptably complete given the presence of an output schema. However, it lacks details on node status prerequisites or the effect of stopping, which would improve completeness.

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%, and the description does not explain the 'lab_path' or 'node_id' parameters beyond implicit context. The schema provides only titles, so the description adds minimal value.

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 action ('stop') and resource ('single node in a lab'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'stop_all' and 'stop_lab'.

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 such as 'stop_all' or 'stop_lab', nor any prerequisites or context about node state.

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