Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
mcp-keycloak

mcp-keycloak

by dockndevai
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

List clients

list_clients
Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve OAuth/OIDC clients configured in a Keycloak realm, optionally filtered by clientId, without exposing client secrets.

Instructions

List OAuth/OIDC clients configured in a realm. Client secrets are not included.

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": "list_clients"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
realmYesRealm name
clientIdNoFilter by clientId

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

A3.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is handled. The description adds a genuinely useful behavioral note beyond them: that client secrets are excluded from the results, which is security-relevant output context. It omits pagination/result-size behavior, keeping it out of the top score.

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?

Two compact sentences with the scope stated first and the exclusion note second; every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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 read-only list tool with no output schema, the description adequately tells the agent what is returned and what is withheld. Only minor gaps remain (ordering, pagination, or whether an empty realm yields an empty list).

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both realm and clientId are already documented in the schema and the baseline is 3. The description adds no syntax, format, or matching semantics (e.g., exact vs partial match for clientId) beyond the schema.

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 (List) and resource (OAuth/OIDC clients configured in a realm), which is unambiguous and distinct from sibling resources like users, groups, and roles. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with any sibling (e.g., a hypothetical get_client), but no such sibling exists here.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and names no alternatives. The only implicit scoping is the required realm parameter, which the schema already communicates.

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