IPI Provisioner MCP Server

Official

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

test_bmc_connection

Validate BMC connectivity via Redfish by verifying credentials and SSL settings, confirming reachability for IPI provisioning.

Instructions

Test BMC connectivity (Redfish).

Args: bmc_address: BMC address (e.g., 'redfish://192.168.1.100' or 'redfish+https://192.168.1.100') username: BMC username password: BMC password verify_ssl: Whether to verify SSL certificates (default: False)

Returns: Connection test results

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": {
      "bmc_address": "<bmc_address>",
      "username": "<username>",
      "password": "<password>"
    },
    "name": "test_bmc_connection"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`password`	Yes
`username`	Yes
`verify_ssl`	No
`bmc_address`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 10, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden, but it only says 'Test BMC connectivity' without disclosing that it performs a live network call, attempts authentication, or is read-only. The verify_ssl default to False hints at behavior but doesn't clarify side effects or failure modes.

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 concise and well-structured: a one-line summary, clearly labeled Args with inline comments, and a Returns line. No wasted words, and it is suitably front-loaded.

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 existence of sibling tools for BMC address validation and parsing, this description is insufficient to position the tool's exact role. It lacks any usage context or differentiation. However, the presence of an output schema and thorough parameter documentation partially mitigates the gap, making it minimally viable.

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 Args section fully compensates: it explains bmc_address format with examples, clarifies username/password roles, and describes verify_ssl's purpose and default. This adds significant value beyond the bare 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 states 'Test BMC connectivity (Redfish)' with a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like validate_bmc_addresses (format validation) and generate_bmc_test_script (script generation). The purpose is unambiguous.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as validate_bmc_addresses or parse_bmc_address. The arg list gives param info but no context on prerequisites or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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