Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
mcp-keycloak

mcp-keycloak

by idoyudha
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

delete_client

Deletes a client from Keycloak by providing its database ID and optional realm. Returns a status message confirming removal.

Instructions

Delete a client.

Args:
    id: The client's database ID
    realm: Target realm (uses default if not specified)

Returns:
    Status message

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": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "delete_client"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYes
realmNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations exist, and the description fails to disclose behavioral traits such as whether the deletion cascades to associated data (e.g., client roles), required permissions, or side effects. This is a significant gap for a mutating tool.

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 short and to the point, covering the essential information without unnecessary verbosity. However, the 'Returns' section is vague (''Status message'') and could be slightly expanded without harming conciseness.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the tool's mutating nature, lack of annotations, and presence of an output schema (content unknown), the description does not provide enough context about side effects, idempotency, or error conditions. It's incomplete for safe agent usage.

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 description includes brief explanations for both parameters: 'The client's database ID' for id and 'Target realm (uses default if not specified)' for realm. This adds value beyond the schema, which has no descriptions, but the explanations are minimal.

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?

The description explicitly states 'Delete a client,' using a specific verb and resource. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'create_client', 'update_client', and others.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools include related operations like 'create_client', 'update_client', 'get_client', etc., but the description does not specify any conditions or warnings.

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