Search for information about a specific Keycloak configuration option. Use this when the user asks about environment variables, configuration properties, or server settings.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| config_option | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'Search for information' without detailing whether the search is exact or fuzzy, whether it accesses live server data or static documentation, or any side effects. It doesn't address read-only or output behavior, leaving the agent to guess.
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, front-loaded with the action and object, and the second sentence adds practical usage context. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or filler.
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 is simple with one parameter and has an output schema, so return values are covered elsewhere. The description gives purpose and usage context, but lacks behavioral transparency as noted, preventing a perfect score.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It implies that config_option is a Keycloak configuration option (like an env var or property), but provides no examples, format, or allowed values beyond the schema's generic string type.
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 uses a specific verb 'Search' and clearly identifies the resource as 'a specific Keycloak configuration option'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like keycloak_search by narrowing to configuration options, environment variables, properties, and server settings.
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?
It explicitly states when to use the tool: 'when the user asks about environment variables, configuration properties, or server settings'. This gives clear context, though it doesn't mention alternatives or when not to use it.
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.
