Un servidor de protocolo de contexto modelo para la administración de Keycloak, que proporciona herramientas para gestionar usuarios y reinos.
Crear nuevos usuarios en reinos específicos
Eliminar usuarios de los reinos
Lista de reinos disponibles
Enumerar usuarios en reinos específicos
Related MCP server: User Management MCP Server
Para instalar Keycloak para Claude Desktop automáticamente a través de Smithery :
npx -y @smithery/cli install keycloak-model-context-protocol --client claudeEl servidor está disponible como un paquete NPM:
# Direct usage with npx
npx -y keycloak-model-context-protocol
# Or global installation
npm install -g keycloak-model-context-protocolSi desea desarrollar o modificar el servidor:
git clone <repository-url>
cd keycloak-model-context-protocol
npm install
npm run buildConfigure el servidor en su archivo de configuración de Claude Desktop:
{
"mcpServers": {
"keycloak": {
"command": "npx",
"args": ["-y", "keycloak-model-context-protocol"],
"env": {
"KEYCLOAK_URL": "http://localhost:8080",
"KEYCLOAK_ADMIN": "admin",
"KEYCLOAK_ADMIN_PASSWORD": "admin"
}
}
}
}{
"mcpServers": {
"keycloak": {
"command": "node",
"args": ["path/to/dist/index.js"],
"env": {
"KEYCLOAK_URL": "http://localhost:8080",
"KEYCLOAK_ADMIN": "admin",
"KEYCLOAK_ADMIN_PASSWORD": "admin"
}
}
}
}Crea un nuevo usuario en un reino específico.
Entradas :
realm : El nombre del reino
username : nombre de usuario para el nuevo usuario
email : Dirección de correo electrónico del usuario
firstName : Nombre del usuario
lastName : Apellido del usuario
Elimina un usuario de un reino específico.
Entradas :
realm : El nombre del reino
userId : El ID del usuario a eliminar
Enumera todos los reinos disponibles.
Enumera todos los usuarios en un reino específico.
Entradas :
realm : El nombre del reino
npm run watchPara probar el servidor usando MCP Inspector:
npx -y @modelcontextprotocol/inspector npx -y keycloak-model-context-protocolEste proyecto se publica automáticamente en NPM a través de GitHub Actions cuando se publica una nueva versión en GitHub.
Cree una cuenta NPM y obtenga un token de acceso
Agregar el secreto NPM_TOKEN al repositorio de GitHub
Vaya a Configuración del repositorio > Secretos
Agregar nuevo secreto llamado NPM_TOKEN
Pegue su token de acceso NPM como valor
Node.js 18 o superior
Ejecución de una instancia de Keycloak
Create a new user in a specific realm
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| realm | Yes | ||
| username | Yes | ||
| Yes | |||
| firstName | Yes | ||
| lastName | Yes |
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 'Create' which implies a write/mutation operation, but doesn't mention permissions required, whether the operation is idempotent, what happens on duplicate entries, or any rate limits. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation 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 a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose, making it easy to parse quickly.
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 mutation tool with 5 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what happens after creation (e.g., returns user ID), error conditions, or behavioral nuances, leaving too many unknowns for effective tool use.
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 schema has 5 parameters with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. However, it only mentions 'realm' implicitly ('in a specific realm') and doesn't explain any parameters like email format requirements, username constraints, or the relationship between fields. This fails to add meaningful semantic context beyond the bare schema.
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 action ('Create') and resource ('new user in a specific realm'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'add-user-to-group' 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.
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 'add-user-to-group' or 'delete-user'. It mentions 'in a specific realm' which implies a context but doesn't specify prerequisites, exclusions, or when-not-to-use scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Delete a user from a specific realm
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| realm | Yes | ||
| userId | Yes |
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 performs a 'delete' operation, implying it's destructive and non-read-only, which is helpful. However, it lacks critical details: whether deletion is permanent or reversible, what permissions are required, if there are rate limits, what happens to associated data, or what the response looks like. For a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.
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 a single, clear sentence that efficiently conveys the core action without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the verb 'Delete' and avoids redundancy. Every word earns its place, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
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?
Given the tool's complexity (a destructive operation with 2 parameters), lack of annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address critical aspects like error conditions, return values, side effects, or security implications. The agent is left with significant gaps in understanding how to use this tool safely and effectively.
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 has 0% description coverage, so parameters 'realm' and 'userId' are undocumented in the schema. The description adds minimal value by implying 'realm' specifies where the user exists and 'userId' identifies the user, but doesn't explain what these parameters represent (e.g., realm as an organizational boundary, userId as a unique identifier), their formats, or examples. It fails to compensate for the schema's lack of 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 the action ('Delete') and target resource ('a user from a specific realm'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like 'create-user' or 'list-users' by specifying a destructive operation. However, it doesn't explicitly mention what 'delete' entails (e.g., permanent removal vs. deactivation), 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.
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., user must exist), consequences of deletion, or relationships with sibling tools like 'create-user' or 'list-users'. The agent receives no help in deciding when this tool is appropriate versus other user management operations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
List all available realms
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description should provide behavioral details. It only mentions listing all realms but lacks info on read-only behavior, pagination, authentication, or response format.
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 extremely concise with a single sentence front-loading the purpose. No wasted words.
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 simple list tool with no parameters or output schema, the description is minimally adequate but lacks details on return structure or any potential filters.
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 has no parameters and schema description coverage is 100%, so the description adds no param semantics. Baseline of 3 is appropriate for a no-parameter tool.
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 'List all available realms' clearly states the action (list) and resource (realms), with 'available' implying no filtering. It is distinct from sibling tools like create-user or list-users.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool or when alternatives might be better. The description gives no context for exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
List users in a specific realm
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| realm | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states 'list users' which implies a read-only operation, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as pagination, sorting, filtering beyond realm, authentication requirements, rate limits, or what the output format looks like. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.
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 a single, clear sentence with zero waste. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, directly stating the tool's purpose without unnecessary elaboration.
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?
Given no annotations, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and a simple parameter structure, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavior, output, parameter meaning, and usage context, making it inadequate for an agent to reliably invoke the tool without additional assumptions.
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 mentions 'in a specific realm', which hints at the 'realm' parameter's purpose, but does not explain what a realm is, its format, valid values, or how it affects the listing. With 1 undocumented parameter, the description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema.
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 'list' and the resource 'users in a specific realm', which is specific and unambiguous. However, it does not distinguish this tool from potential siblings like 'list-groups' or 'list-clients' beyond the resource name, as all share the same 'list' pattern without explicit differentiation in the description.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions 'in a specific realm' but does not specify prerequisites, exclusions, or compare it to other user-related tools like 'create-user' or 'list-client-roles', leaving usage context implied at best.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0create-userdelete-userlist-realmslist-usersScored across 4 tools
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.
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.
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.
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.
Managed Keycloak from any MCP client: clusters, realms, apps, SSO, users, domains, audit events.
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
A comprehensive Model Context Protocol (MCP) server that enables AI assistants to interact with yo…
MCP server for mandates, delegation, policy-gated execution, credential grants, and audit.
