IPI Provisioner MCP Server

Official

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

generate_dns_config

Generate required DNS records and validation commands for OpenShift cluster provisioning, including A and PTR records for hosts, API, and ingress VIPs.

Instructions

Generate DNS configuration for the cluster.

Args: cluster_name: Cluster name base_domain: Base domain api_vip: API VIP address ingress_vip: Ingress VIP address hosts: Optional JSON string of hosts list. Each host should have 'name' and 'ip' keys. Example: '[{"name": "master-0", "ip": "10.1.235.25"}, {"name": "master-1", "ip": "10.1.235.26"}]'

Returns: Required DNS records and validation commands including A and PTR records for hosts

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": {
      "cluster_name": "<cluster_name>",
      "base_domain": "<base_domain>",
      "api_vip": "<api_vip>",
      "ingress_vip": "<ingress_vip>"
    },
    "name": "generate_dns_config"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`hosts`	No
`api_vip`	Yes
`base_domain`	Yes
`ingress_vip`	Yes
`cluster_name`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 10, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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 discloses that the tool returns DNS records and validation commands, implying a read-only/generation behavior with no side effects. It also clarifies the optional 'hosts' parameter format and example, adding useful behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 well-structured with a clear purpose sentence, an Args block, and a Returns line. It is appropriately sized, front-loaded, and every line adds value, including the hosts example. No redundancy with the schema.

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?

The description covers the tool's purpose, parameters, and return value, which is sufficient for a generation tool with a moderate number of parameters. It lacks edge-case details (e.g., behavior with invalid IPs, interaction with other tools), but given the output schema exists and the description provides a solid overview, it is nearly complete.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description provides clear explanations for all five parameters, including an example for 'hosts'. The Args section fully compensates for the schema gap, giving semantic meaning to each parameter.

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 states a specific verb ('Generate') and resource ('DNS configuration for the cluster'). It clearly differentiates from sibling tools by focusing on DNS records and validation commands, which no other tool in the list addresses.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage through its parameter list and returns (e.g., needed when DNS records are required), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. Context signals show related tools but no direct comparison.

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