Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
mcp-keycloak

mcp-keycloak

by dockndevai
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

List groups

list_groups
Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve groups from a Keycloak realm, optionally filtering by search term. Use for group management or auditing.

Instructions

List groups in a 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": "list_groups"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
realmYesRealm name
searchNoOptional search term

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=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds only the realm scoping, which the schema already enforces as required, and says nothing about pagination, ordering, or result size limits for a list operation.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It is efficient, though the brevity comes at the cost of the guidance the tool is missing rather than through tight editing of a richer description.

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 read-only list tool with full schema coverage and annotation coverage, the description is minimally adequate. It omits pagination/limit behavior and any note on result shape, which matters for a list endpoint with no output schema.

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% and both parameters (realm, search) are documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning about how 'search' matches or how results are scoped beyond what the schema states.

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 states a clear verb (List) and resource (groups) plus its scope (in a realm), so an agent knows what it returns. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the many sibling list tools (list_users, list_clients, list_realm_roles) beyond the noun, which keeps it short of a 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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites or permissions, and no reference to alternatives or follow-up tools among the siblings. The agent is left to infer that this is the right list tool purely from the name.

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