Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
mcp-keycloak

mcp-keycloak

by idoyudha
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

get_client

Retrieve a specific client from Keycloak using its internal database ID, returning the client object for further actions.

Instructions

Get a specific client by database ID.

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

Returns:
    Client object

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": "get_client"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYes
realmNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
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 indicates a read operation but lacks additional behavioral context such as authentication requirements, rate limits, or error handling (e.g., behavior when ID not found).

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?

The description is concise and front-loaded: the first line gives the core purpose, followed by parameter details in a clear Args section. No unnecessary information.

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?

The tool is simple (get by ID), and an output schema exists, so return structure is covered. However, the description does not mention edge cases like missing IDs or handling of realm defaults, leaving minor gaps.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description adds significant meaning: 'id' is clarified as the database ID (not client_id) and 'realm' is described as optional with a default behavior, which is not evident from the schema alone.

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 clearly states it gets a specific client by database ID, and distinguishes between 'id' (database ID) and 'client_id', differentiating it from sibling tool 'get_client_by_clientid'.

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 clarifies the key parameter difference (database ID vs client_id) and mentions optional realm, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like 'get_client_by_clientid'.

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