PNETLab MCP Server

upload_lab

Import a lab from a local .zip file into a workspace folder. Provide the zip file path and optional destination folder.

Instructions

Import a lab from a local .zip (previously produced by download_lab) into a workspace folder. Pass the local zip path and the destination folder (default '/'). The folder must already exist.

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": {
      "zip_file_path": "<zip_file_path>"
    },
    "name": "upload_lab"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`folder`	No		/
`zip_file_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

A4.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the zip is produced by download_lab, implying a specific format, and states the folder must exist. However, it does not disclose what happens on invalid zip, overwrite behavior, or if the lab can be imported into non-empty folders.

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?

The description is two sentences, no wasted words. The first sentence states the primary action and source, and the second explains parameters and prerequisite. It is front-loaded and efficient.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given the tool has 2 parameters, an output schema (presumably covering return values), and no nested objects, the description covers the essential purpose, inputs, and a key prerequisite. It does not mention error cases or overwrite behavior, but these are not critical for basic usage.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 0%, but the description explains both parameters: zip_file_path as the local path to the .zip and folder as the destination with default '/'. It adds the constraint that the folder must already exist, which is not in the schema.

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 imports a lab from a .zip file produced by download_lab into a workspace folder. It distinguishes itself from siblings like create_lab (creates from scratch) and download_lab (exports). The verb 'import' and resource 'lab' are specific.

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 the tool (importing a previously downloaded lab) and notes a prerequisite (folder must already exist). It implies an alternative by referencing download_lab, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or list other alternatives.

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