Goal:

Enable Satellite administrators to add security patches and updates to content views through natural language requests via MCP. Users can request specific errata be added to content views and automatically make those updates available to managed hosts through content view publishing and promotion. This provides administrators with an intuitive way to ensure critical patches reach their infrastructure without navigating complex Satellite UI workflows.

Acceptance Criteria:

Content View Patch Addition: Users can request via natural language to add specific errata (e.g., RHSA-2025:1234) to content views that do not currently include them

• MCP server identifies content views missing the specified errata that are attached to hosts where the errata is applicable
• User confirms which content views (specific ones or all) should receive the errata
• MCP server adds the requested errata to the specified content views
• Provides confirmation of which content views were updated

Content View Publishing and Promotion: Users can request via natural language to make newly added patches available to hosts

1. MCP server identifies content views that need publishing after errata addition
2. User confirms which content views to publish and promote
3. MCP server publishes new content view versions containing the added errata
4. MCP server identifies lifecycle environments that require promotion and presents them to the user
5. User confirms promotion for each environment individually (e.g., promote to Dev? Test? Production?)
6. MCP server promotes published versions through confirmed lifecycle environments
7. Ensures hosts have access to the new patch content

Satellite-Only Scope: Initial implementation restricted to Satellite server content management

• • Capsule content synchronization is out of scope for this Epic
  • Focus on central Satellite content view operations only

Integration with Existing Capabilities: Content operations integrate seamlessly with existing MCP reporting features from 6.18

Open questions:

1. How should the system handle content view dependencies and composite content views when adding errata?
2. What is the appropriate error handling when lifecycle environment promotion fails partway through the process?
3. Should there be batch operation limits for safety when processing large numbers of content views?
4. How should the system present promotion paths for complex lifecycle environment hierarchies to ensure clarity for user decisions?