PNETLab MCP Server

wipe_node

Clears a node's NVRAM and runtime state, forcing a reboot from stored startup-config to factory reset or reload a pushed configuration. Also releases stuck console lines.

Instructions

Wipe a node — clear its NVRAM/runtime state so it reboots fresh from the stored startup-config (PNETLab 'Wipe'). Use to factory-reset a device or force a pushed config to reload. Also frees a stuck console line.

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": "wipe_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

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses main behavioral traits: destructive wipe, reboot from startup config, and an additional side effect of freeing a stuck console line. Lacks detail on permissions or error scenarios but is sufficiently transparent for most cases.

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?

Three sentences, each adding value. Front-loaded with main action, followed by use cases and an extra side effect. No fluff.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given simple tool with 2 parameters and existence of output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, and an important side effect. No need to explain return values due to output schema.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 0%, and description does not elaborate on parameters beyond their names. However, 'lab_path' and 'node_id' are self-explanatory from context. Description would benefit from clarifying expected formats or constraints.

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 wipes a node by clearing NVRAM/runtime state, causing a reboot from startup-config. It distinguishes from siblings like delete_node or push_config by specifying 'factory-reset' and 'reload config'.

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?

Explicitly gives two use cases: factory-reset a device and force a pushed config to reload, plus frees a stuck console line. However, it does not mention when NOT to use it, such as when needing to preserve runtime state.

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