Explain Keycloak protocols (oidc, saml, oauth2). Returns description and relevant documentation snippets.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| protocol_type | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses that the tool returns descriptions and documentation snippets, and the verb 'explain' strongly implies a read-only operation. However, with no annotations, it does not explicitly state there are no side effects or permission requirements, though for an informational tool this is reasonably covered.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two concise sentences with no unnecessary words. It front-loads the action and resource, then adds the return type, making it both efficient and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has a single parameter and an output schema, and the description covers the purpose, protocol list, and return format. For a simple explain operation, this is complete and no additional context is required.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema only defines protocol_type as a bare string with no description, but the tool description directly lists the valid values (oidc, saml, oauth2). This fully compensates for the 0% schema description coverage and gives the agent precise input choices.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb (explain) and resource (Keycloak protocols), and enumerates the specific protocol types (oidc, saml, oauth2). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like explain_keycloak_component, which likely handles different resource types.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies use when the user needs an explanation of Keycloak protocol details, but it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools such as keycloak_explain or provide when-not-to-use guidance. No alternative tools are mentioned, so the usage guidance is only implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Several tools overlap: keycloak_explain claims to answer any Keycloak question, which subsumes explain_keycloak_component and explain_keycloak_protocol. keycloak_search and keycloak_config_reference also overlap with explanation capabilities, creating ambiguity about which tool to select.
The naming is inconsistent: the first three tools use verb_keycloak_noun (analyze_keycloak_deployment, explain_keycloak_component, explain_keycloak_protocol), while the last three use keycloak_verb or keycloak_noun (keycloak_explain, keycloak_search, keycloak_config_reference). This mixing of conventions is confusing.
With 6 tools, the count is within the ideal range for a specialized server, each covering an aspect of Keycloak knowledge. The count feels appropriate for the purpose.
The toolset covers deployment analysis, component/protocol explanations, configuration lookup, and semantic search—sufficient for a knowledge assistant. Minor gaps like version comparison or troubleshooting aren't critical, so completeness is solid.
