IPI Provisioner MCP Server

Official

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

validate_bmc_addresses

Validate BMC addresses and credentials for multiple hosts, returning per-host results to identify connectivity issues before cluster provisioning.

Instructions

Validate BMC addresses for multiple hosts.

Args: hosts: List of host configurations with BMC details Each host should have: name, bmc.address, bmc.username, bmc.password

Returns: Validation results for all 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": {
      "hosts": "<hosts>"
    },
    "name": "validate_bmc_addresses"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`hosts`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 10, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. 'Validate' is vague—it doesn't specify whether it checks IP format, credentials, reachability, or something else. It also omits potential side effects, network operations, or failure behavior.

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 compact and well-structured with Args and Returns sections. Every sentence contributes useful information without redundancy.

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?

It covers the input shape and the return concept, and an output schema exists to detail results. However, it leaves the exact validation criteria undefined, which is a notable gap for a validation tool.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage for the hosts parameter, but the description compensates by listing required fields (name, bmc.address, bmc.username, bmc.password). This adds meaning beyond the bare schema, though it could be more detailed about accepted variations.

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 uses a specific verb 'Validate' with a clear resource 'BMC addresses' and scope 'for multiple hosts', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like test_bmc_connection or parse_bmc_address. The action and target are unambiguous.

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?

While 'for multiple hosts' implies a batch use case, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like test_bmc_connection or validate_install_config. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided.

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