Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
mcp-keycloak

mcp-keycloak

by dockndevai
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Get realm settings

get_realm
Read-onlyIdempotent

Fetch the configuration of a specified Keycloak realm. Use it to inspect settings and verify configurations before modification.

Instructions

Fetch the configuration of a single realm.

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": {
      "realm": "<realm>"
    },
    "name": "get_realm"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
realmYesRealm name

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.2.2
    • removedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -false
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured fields. The description adds nothing beyond that: it doesn't say what 'configuration' includes, whether the realm must exist, or what happens for an unknown realm name.

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?

A single efficient sentence with the action front-loaded and zero filler. It is appropriately sized, though its brevity stems partly from under-specification rather than economy.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a simple one-parameter read tool with rich annotations, this is minimally adequate. But with no output schema, the description does not indicate what the returned 'configuration' comprises, leaving a gap the structured fields don't fill.

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?

With only one parameter and 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents the 'realm' name parameter. The description adds no format, naming-convention, or default details beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb ('Fetch') and resource ('configuration of a single realm'), which is clear and unambiguous. However, it offers no differentiation from the sibling list_realms tool, leaving the agent to infer why a singular realm fetch exists alongside a list operation.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus list_realms or other siblings, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The word 'single' weakly implies targeting one realm, but no usage condition is stated.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools