Fetch a single client's normalized configuration from Keycloak or Authentik using its internal ID, with an optional IdP target for multi-provider setups.
[READ] One client's normalized detail by internal id.
Args: client_id: Internal id (Keycloak UUID / authentik provider pk), from list_clients. target: IdP target name from config; omit for the default.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| target | No | ||
| client_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.6.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
readOnlyHint=true already declares the safe-read profile, and the '[READ]' prefix merely restates it. The description does add useful context — the id is a Keycloak UUID / authentik provider pk and results are 'normalized' — but says nothing about what normalization means, error behavior for unknown ids, or return shape.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence followed by two tight arg annotations; every line adds information and nothing is padded.
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 2-param read tool with no output schema, the description covers inputs and read-only status adequately, but 'normalized detail' is left undefined, so an agent cannot anticipate the returned fields or whether related data (sessions, redirect URIs) is included.
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 carries the full burden, and it does well: it identifies client_id's format/provenance (internal id from list_clients) and target's meaning plus the omit-for-default convention. Only the exact IdP target name format is unstated.
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?
States a specific verb+resource+scope: fetch one client's normalized detail keyed by internal id. The [READ] tag and 'by internal id' clearly separate it from list_clients, though the description never explicitly names that sibling.
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 routes the agent to list_clients as the source of client_id and explains the default-target behavior, implying single-client lookup. But it never states when to prefer this over list_clients or related siblings (client_sessions, client_misconfig_audit).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.