pnetlab-mcp-server

delete_node

Stops and removes a specified node from an open PNETLab lab to tidy up the topology.

Instructions

Delete a node from the open lab (stop it first).

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": {
      "node_id": "<node_id>"
    },
    "name": "delete_node"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`node_id`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.1Jul 31, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal an important constraint (must stop the node first), implying that deleting a running node is invalid. However, it does not explain whether deletion is permanent, whether it affects connected links, or what error behaviors might occur, which is notable for a destructive operation.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that states the action and gives a parenthetical prerequisite. Every word earns its place, with no redundant or vague phrasing.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, clear action), the description gives the essential operation and prerequisite. However, it lacks details on side effects such as whether the node's configuration is deleted, what happens to connected links, or what the output schema indicates. A bit more context would make it more robust, but it remains minimally viable.

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?

The schema describes node_id only as an integer with no description (0% coverage), and the description does not elaborate on it beyond referencing 'a node'. The parameter name is self-explanatory to a degree, but the description fails to compensate for the schema gap by not specifying how to obtain node_id or its role within the lab context.

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 ('Delete') and the resource ('a node') within the context of the open lab. This effectively differentiates it from sibling tools like delete_link, stop_node, or add_node, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 parenthetical '(stop it first)' provides an explicit prerequisite, telling the agent when it is safe to use the tool. While it does not name alternatives or explicitly state when not to use this tool, the guideline is actionable and directly relevant to successful invocation.

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