Recovery mcp v2

[gsharini]

Description

This change expands the Recovery MCP server’s read-oriented Recovery Service coverage.

Summary of change:

• Adds restore discovery support via list_restore.
• Adds child-compartment traversal support to list/summarize flows so compartment-scoped queries can aggregate across the subtree when requested.
• Makes retention-lock and redo-shipping fields explicit in responses for protected database reads.

Motivation and context:

• The branch adds better visibility into restore activity and related database inventory for Recovery MCP users.

Dependencies required for this change:

• No new package or module dependencies were added in this branch.
• This change continues to rely on the existing OCI Python SDK and the repo’s existing test environment.

Fixes #

Type of change

• Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
• New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
• [] Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to not work as expected)
• This change requires a documentation update

How Has This Been Tested?

Validated with targeted pytest coverage for the two Recovery MCP test modules changed by this branch.

Repro:
ORACLE_MCP_LOG_DIR=/private/tmp/oci-recovery-mcp-logs pytest src/oci-recovery-mcp-server/oracle/oci_recovery_mcp_server/tests/test_recovery_database_tools.py src/oci-recovery-mcp-server/oracle/oci_recovery_mcp_server/tests/test_recovery_tools.py

• test_recovery_database_tools.py
• test_recovery_tools.py

Test Configuration:

• Firmware version: N/A
• Hardware: Local macOS development machine
• Toolchain: Python 3.13.5, pytest 9.0.2
• SDK: Existing repo environment / OCI Python SDK

Checklist:

• My code follows the style guidelines of this project
• I have performed a self-review of my own code
• I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
• I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
• My changes generate no new warnings
• I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my feature works
• New and existing unit tests pass locally with my changes
• Any dependent changes have been merged and published in downstream modules

[krisrice]

Automated review result: needs security/manual review.

Reason:

• This PR changes the OCI Recovery MCP server surface by adding restore/work-request listing behavior and model mapping changes in a database recovery control-plane server. New backend access in a high-privilege recovery domain requires manual validation.

Manual review should verify:

• Server-side authorization and least-privilege scope.
• Parameter validation and bounded output/pagination.
• Secret/customer-data redaction in logs, errors, and returned content.
• Tests for auth failure, validation failure, side effects, and redaction where applicable.

No automated approval or merge was performed.

[gsharini]

Can someone please review and approve this PR?

This change only adds read/list behavior for Recovery MCP restore/work-request visibility. It does not initiate restore/recovery operations or introduce mutating actions.

I did a pass against the automated review checklist:

• Auth still goes through the existing OCI client/auth paths, with OCI IAM enforcing access to compartments/resources.
• Returned restore data is narrowed through the WorkRequest model, not raw SDK objects.
• list_restore filters work requests to restore operations only and excludes unrelated work-request types.
• Pagination is handled through OCI page tokens, with support for caller-provided limit/page.
• Logging uses the existing structured redaction helper for secret-like keys such as token, secret, private key, client secret, etc.
• Tests cover restore filtering, empty/non-restore results, pagination behavior, auth path wiring, and redaction helper behavior.

The main review ask is to confirm whether the existing read-only behavior, OCI IAM enforcement, pagination handling, and redaction coverage are sufficient for approval, or if you want additional bounds/validation before merge.

[krisrice]

Automated review result: needs security/manual review.

Reason:

• This expands an OCI database-recovery control-plane server with restore and work-request visibility. The author states the paths are read-only and provided validation details, but recovery metadata remains sensitive high-privilege backend content.

Manual review should verify authorization, compartment scoping, pagination/output bounds, model shaping, error redaction, and read-only enforcement. No automated approval or merge was performed.

[krisrice]

Maintainer-directed merge after review: GitHub reports the PR mergeable, all reported checks are passing, and the repository maintainer explicitly requested merging all mergeable PRs.