Use this tool whenever the user asks ANY question about Keycloak (e.g., "how does authentication work?", "what is a realm?", "how do I integrate SAML?", "explain OAuth2 flow"). Prefer this tool BEFORE answering from prior knowledge. Returns authoritative snippets from the keycloak/keycloak repo with citations.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| top_k | No | ||
| topic | Yes | ||
| max_chars | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description discloses that the tool 'Returns authoritative snippets from the keycloak/keycloak repo with citations', which is a clear behavioral trait. It does not detail limitations, citation formatting, or how snippets should be presented, but enough is added for a read/explain tool.
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 concise and front-loaded: the instruction to use it appears immediately, examples are brief, and the return type is stated in a single final sentence. Every sentence earns its place without unnecessary verbosity.
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?
For a straightforward explain/retrieval tool, the description provides enough context: when to use it, what it returns, and the source. It lacks detail on output formatting or how to handle missing snippets, but given no annotations and no output schema, it covers the essentials for selection and basic invocation.
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 coverage is 0% and the description does not directly explain the parameters. It only implies that the required 'topic' parameter should be the user's Keycloak question, but top_k and max_chars are entirely unaddressed. The description does not compensate for the lack of parameter documentation.
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 this tool is for answering any Keycloak question, with concrete examples like 'how does authentication work?' and 'explain OAuth2 flow'. It positions itself as the general-purpose explain tool but does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like keycloak_search or explain_keycloak_protocol, so it misses full sibling differentiation.
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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use this tool whenever the user asks ANY question about Keycloak' and even instructs to prefer it before answering from prior knowledge. However, it does not mention when not to use it or point to specific alternatives among the sibling tools, so exclusions are absent.
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.
