IPI Provisioner MCP Server

Official

by redhat-community-ai-tools

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Local

validate_network_cidr

Validate CIDR notation to ensure correct network definitions in OpenShift cluster configuration.

Instructions

Validate CIDR notation.

Args: cidr: CIDR string (e.g., '192.168.1.0/24')

Returns: Validation result

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": {
      "cidr": "<cidr>"
    },
    "name": "validate_network_cidr"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`cidr`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 10, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool performs validation and returns a 'Validation result,' which implies a read-only operation. However, it does not specify the result's format, possible exceptions, or any side effects, leaving some ambiguity.

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, with a one-sentence purpose followed by clearly labeled Args and Returns sections. Every line adds value with no filler or 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?

For a single-parameter validator, the description adequately covers the input and basic return concept. Since an output schema exists, return-value details are not required in the description. However, the missing usage context and behavioral transparency prevent a perfect score.

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 schema has no description for the 'cidr' parameter, but the description compensates with a clear explanation and an example ('192.168.1.0/24'). This gives the agent practical guidance on the expected string format, exceeding what the schema provides.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb and resource: 'Validate CIDR notation.' It is distinguishable from siblings like validate_vip_configuration by its narrow focus on CIDR syntax. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from other validate tools, so it misses a top score.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as check_ip_in_network or validate_complete_network_config. Usage is only implied by the name and purpose. 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.