What can you do with this server?

The Keycloak MCP Server is a tool for managing users and realms in Keycloak. It allows you to: * Create Users: Add new users to a specified realm with details like username, email, first name, and last name. * Delete Users: Remove users from a realm using their user ID. * List Realms: Retrieve all available realms in the Keycloak instance. * List Users: View all users within a specified realm.

Which integrations are available for this server?

Provides tools for Keycloak administration, allowing management of users and realms including creating and deleting users, listing available realms, and viewing users within specific realms.

How do I use Keycloak MCP Server?

1. Click on "Install Server". 2. Wait a few minutes for the server to deploy. Once ready, it will show a "Started" state. 3. In the chat, type @ followed by the MCP server name and your instructions, e.g., "@Keycloak MCP Server list all users in the 'customer' realm" That's it! The server will respond to your query, and you can continue using it as needed. Here is a step-by-step guide with screenshots.

en es ja ko zh

Keycloak MCP Server

by ChristophEnglisch

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

TypeScript

Remote

Keycloak MCP Server

A Model Context Protocol server for Keycloak administration, providing tools to manage users and realms.

Features

Create new users in specific realms
Delete users from realms
List available realms
List users in specific realms

Related MCP server: User Management MCP Server

Installation

Installing via Smithery

To install Keycloak for Claude Desktop automatically via Smithery:

npx -y @smithery/cli install keycloak-model-context-protocol --client claude

Via NPM (Recommended)

The server is available as an NPM package:

# Direct usage with npx
npx -y keycloak-model-context-protocol

# Or global installation
npm install -g keycloak-model-context-protocol

Local Development Setup

If you want to develop or modify the server:

git clone <repository-url>
cd keycloak-model-context-protocol
npm install
npm run build

Configuration

Using NPM Package (Recommended)

Configure the server in your Claude Desktop configuration file:

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "keycloak": {
      "command": "npx",
      "args": ["-y", "keycloak-model-context-protocol"],
      "env": {
        "KEYCLOAK_URL": "http://localhost:8080",
        "KEYCLOAK_ADMIN": "admin",
        "KEYCLOAK_ADMIN_PASSWORD": "admin"
      }
    }
  }
}

For Local Development

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "keycloak": {
      "command": "node",
      "args": ["path/to/dist/index.js"],
      "env": {
        "KEYCLOAK_URL": "http://localhost:8080",
        "KEYCLOAK_ADMIN": "admin",
        "KEYCLOAK_ADMIN_PASSWORD": "admin"
      }
    }
  }
}

Available Tools

create-user

Creates a new user in a specified realm.

Inputs:

realm: The realm name
username: Username for the new user
email: Email address for the user
firstName: User's first name
lastName: User's last name

delete-user

Deletes a user from a specified realm.

Inputs:

realm: The realm name
userId: The ID of the user to delete

list-realms

Lists all available realms.

list-users

Lists all users in a specified realm.

Inputs:

realm: The realm name

Development

npm run watch

Testing

To test the server using MCP Inspector:

npx -y @modelcontextprotocol/inspector npx -y keycloak-model-context-protocol

Deployment

NPM Package

This project is automatically published to NPM via GitHub Actions when a new release is published on GitHub.

Setup Requirements for Deployment

Create NPM account and get access token
Add NPM_TOKEN secret to GitHub repository
- Go to repository Settings > Secrets
- Add new secret named NPM_TOKEN
- Paste your NPM access token as the value

Prerequisites

Node.js 18 or higher
Running Keycloak instance

Available Tools

4 tools

create-userC

Create a new user in a specific realm

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`realm`	Yes
`username`	Yes
`email`	Yes
`firstName`	Yes
`lastName`	Yes

TDQS

C2.8/5.0

Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool creates a user, implying a write/mutation operation, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits such as permissions required, whether the operation is idempotent, error handling, or what happens on success/failure. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how to use it safely and effectively.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, clear sentence that is front-loaded with the core action. There is no wasted verbiage or unnecessary elaboration, making it highly efficient and easy to parse. Every word earns its place by conveying essential information without redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the complexity of a user creation tool with 5 required parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral aspects, parameter usage, and expected outcomes. While concise, it doesn't provide enough context for an agent to confidently invoke the tool without additional assumptions or errors.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

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 by explaining parameters, but it adds no meaning beyond the schema. The description mentions 'realm' but doesn't clarify what a realm is or how parameters like 'username' or 'email' are used. With 5 required parameters and no guidance in the description, this is inadequate for understanding parameter roles.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('Create') and resource ('new user in a specific realm'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'delete-user' and 'list-users' by specifying creation rather than deletion or listing. However, it doesn't specify what kind of user or system this applies to, which prevents a perfect score.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing realm access), when not to use it (e.g., for existing users), or direct alternatives among siblings. The phrase 'in a specific realm' hints at context but lacks explicit usage instructions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

delete-userC

Delete a user from a specific realm

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`realm`	Yes
`userId`	Yes

TDQS

C2.8/5.0

Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a destructive operation ('Delete'), but fails to specify whether deletion is permanent, reversible, requires admin permissions, or has side effects. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, direct sentence with no wasted words, making it highly concise and front-loaded. It efficiently communicates the core action without unnecessary elaboration.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a destructive tool with no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on permissions, irreversibility, error handling, and return values, leaving critical context gaps for safe and effective use.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

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 by explaining parameters. It mentions 'realm' and 'userId' implicitly but doesn't define their meaning, format, or constraints. This adds minimal value beyond the bare schema, failing to adequately clarify parameter semantics.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('Delete') and resource ('a user from a specific realm'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'create-user' or 'list-users', which would require explicit comparison to achieve a score of 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create-user' or 'list-users', nor does it mention prerequisites, permissions, or consequences. It simply states what the tool does without contextual usage information.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

list-realmsB

List all available realms

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No parameters

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does ('list all available realms') but doesn't describe return format, pagination, permissions needed, or any side effects. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient to inform the agent about how the tool behaves beyond its basic function.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple list operation and front-loaded with the essential information. Every part of the description earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'realms' are, what the return format looks like, or any behavioral traits. For a tool with no structured data to rely on, the description should provide more context to help the agent understand the tool fully.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (though empty). The description doesn't need to compensate for missing parameter info. A baseline of 4 is appropriate since there are no parameters to document, and the description accurately reflects this by not mentioning any.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('list') and resource ('realms'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'list-users', which could cause confusion about scope. It's not tautological or misleading, but lacks sibling distinction for a perfect score.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list-users' or other siblings. There's no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions. While the purpose is clear, the absence of usage context leaves the agent without direction for tool selection.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

list-usersC

List users in a specific realm

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`realm`	Yes

TDQS

C2.8/5.0

Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states it's a list operation (implying read-only), but doesn't mention permissions needed, pagination behavior, rate limits, or what the output looks like. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple list tool and front-loads the essential information ('List users'). Every word earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It covers the basic purpose but lacks parameter details, behavioral context, and output information that would help an agent use this tool effectively.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the single parameter 'realm' is undocumented in the schema. The description adds minimal value by mentioning 'specific realm', but doesn't explain what a realm is, provide format examples, or clarify if it's a name, ID, or something else. It doesn't compensate for the schema coverage gap.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('List') and resource ('users in a specific realm'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like 'list-realms' or 'create-user', but the specificity of 'users' vs 'realms' provides implicit differentiation.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list-realms' or 'create-user'. It mentions 'specific realm' which hints at a prerequisite, but offers no explicit usage context, exclusions, or comparison to sibling tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Install Server

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose with no overlap: create-user and delete-user handle user lifecycle actions, list-realms lists realms, and list-users lists users within a realm. The descriptions make it unambiguous which tool to use for each operation.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with hyphen separation (e.g., create-user, delete-user, list-realms, list-users). This uniformity makes the tool set predictable and easy to understand.

Tool Count3/5

With only 4 tools, the set feels thin for a Keycloak server, which typically manages realms, users, roles, clients, and groups. While the tools cover basic user and realm operations, the scope is limited compared to the domain's complexity.

Completeness2/5

There are significant gaps in the tool surface for Keycloak management. Missing operations include updating users, managing roles, handling clients, and performing authentication flows. This incomplete coverage will likely cause agent failures when trying to perform common administrative tasks.

Maintenance

ActivityInactive

ResponsivenessSyncing

Resources

Need Help?

Reddit Discussion

Related Servers

Unclaimed servers have limited discoverability.

Looking for Admin?

If you are the server author, to access and configure the admin panel.

Related MCP Connectors

Apideck MCP A
dev.apideck.mcp
Model Context Protocol server for the Apideck Unified API. Connect any MCP-compatible agent framework to 100+ accounting systems, HRIS platforms, file storage providers, and more through one integration. More information https://www.apideck.com/mcp-server
Developer Tools
42
hithereiamaliff-mcp-nextcloudOAuth
ai.smithery
A comprehensive Model Context Protocol (MCP) server that enables AI assistants to interact with yo…
Cloud Storage File Systems Workplace & Productivity
237
jumpcloud-genaiOAuth
com.jumpcloud
An MCP server that provides an API to LLMs to manage their JumpCloud resources.
Cloud Platforms Security Developer Tools
2
Studex MCP Server
io.github.itshivams
Model Context Protocol server for Studex tools, notifications, and profile integrations
Developer Tools
1

Related MCP Servers

Keycloak MCP Server
Security Developer Tools
HaithamOumerzoug
A
license
B
quality
D
maintenance
A Model Context Protocol server that enables management of Keycloak users and realms through a standardized interface, providing tools for user creation, deletion, role assignment, and group management.
Updated 9 months ago (2025-12-01 20:39 UTC)
9
48
13
MIT
User Management MCP Server
Databases Developer Tools Autonomous Agents
SufyaanKhateeb
F
license
C
quality
D
maintenance
A Model Context Protocol server demonstrating user management capabilities with tools for creating, retrieving, and generating random user data.
Updated a year ago (2025-07-25 19:03 UTC)
2
keycloak-mcp
Security Developer Tools
shigechika
A
license
A
quality
A
maintenance
An MCP server for Keycloak Admin REST API, enabling user, group, event, and security management through service account authentication.
Updated 8 days ago (2026-08-26 19:06 UTC)
30
MIT
mcp-keycloak
Security Developer Tools
xuancanhit99
A
license
Not graded
quality
D
maintenance
A Model Context Protocol (MCP) server that provides a natural language interface for managing Keycloak identity and access management through its REST API.
Updated 7 months ago (2026-02-13 04:42 UTC)
MIT

Appeared in Searches

Managing Clerk Authorization

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/ChristophEnglisch/keycloak-model-context-protocol'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server