keycloak-mcp

Get client

get_client

Retrieve the full configuration of a Keycloak client by its clientId. Sensitive fields like client secrets are automatically redacted.

Instructions

Fetch the full representation of one client by clientId. Secret-bearing fields (client secret, registration access token) are always redacted.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "host": "<host>",
      "realm": "<realm>",
      "clientId": "<clientId>"
    },
    "name": "get_client"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`host`	Yes	Target Keycloak host key, as configured in the config file's "hosts" map (or the KC_<HOST>_* env fallback). A host whose "production" flag is true, or absent, is treated as PRODUCTION and its writes are gated by "allowProdWrite".
`realm`	Yes	Target realm name for the operation.
`clientId`	Yes	The client's clientId (the human-readable OAuth client id, not the UUID).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 9, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

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 discloses that secret-bearing fields are always redacted, which is important. However, it does not mention other behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, or whether the operation has side effects. The description covers basic safety but lacks depth.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is a single sentence that immediately states the purpose. It is concise, but could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating purpose from behavior). However, it contains no wasted words and is effectively front-loaded.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a simple fetch operation, the description covers what the tool returns (full representation) and a key behavioral nuance (redaction). There is no output schema, so the description must stand alone. It does not mention error handling or edge cases, but it is sufficient for a clear API call.

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

Parameters3/5

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

The input schema has 100% description coverage with detailed explanations for each parameter (host, realm, clientId). The description adds no additional parameter-level info beyond stating secret redaction. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already does the heavy lifting.

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

Purpose5/5

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

Description clearly states the verb 'Fetch' and the resource 'full representation of one client by clientId'. It distinguishes from siblings like list_clients (which lists many) and dump_client_secret (which extracts a specific field).

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description implies when to use (when you need a single client's full data) but does not explicitly name alternatives or when not to use. The context of sibling tools makes the choice clear, but formal guidance is missing.

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

Deploy Server