IPI Provisioner MCP Server

Official

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

validate_install_config

Validate an install-config.yaml file for OpenShift baremetal IPI deployments, returning errors and a summary to confirm cluster configuration readiness.

Instructions

Validate an install-config.yaml file.

Args: config_yaml: The install-config.yaml content as a string

Returns: Validation results with errors and summary

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": {
      "config_yaml": "<config_yaml>"
    },
    "name": "validate_install_config"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`config_yaml`	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 carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that it validates and returns errors/summary, but does not mention side effects (e.g., read-only), potential failure modes, or whether it checks against external systems. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotations.

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 efficient and well-structured, with a one-line purpose followed by clear Args and Returns sections. Every sentence serves a purpose with no redundancy or fluff.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, output schema provided), the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, input, and return value. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to understand what the tool does, though it could offer more workflow context (e.g., when in the installation process to run it).

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 single parameter config_yaml is clearly described as 'The install-config.yaml content as a string', adding meaningful context beyond the bare schema type. Since schema description coverage is 0%, this description compensates well for the schema's silence.

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 'Validate an install-config.yaml file' with a specific verb and resource. It is distinct from sibling tools like generate_install_config and list_config_templates, making the tool's purpose 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?

The usage is implied by the tool's name and description: use it to validate an install-config.yaml file. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives or prerequisites, leaving the context implicit.

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