Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
mcp-keycloak

mcp-keycloak

by idoyudha
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

get_client_by_clientid

Retrieve a specific client from a Keycloak realm using its client ID. Optionally specify the target realm.

Instructions

Get a specific client by client ID.

Args:
    client_id: The client's 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": {
      "client_id": "<client_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_client_by_clientid"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
client_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?

Without annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention that the tool is read-only, idempotent, or error behavior (e.g., client not found). Minimal transparency.

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 extremely concise (under 50 words) with a clear structure: purpose, args, returns. No redundant information.

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 get tool, the description covers the basics. The existence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values. However, it lacks safety cues (read-only) and error handling context.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description adds necessary context. It explains both parameters: client_id and realm (noting default behavior). However, it could improve by specifying the format or source of 'realm'.

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 clearly states the action ('Get a specific client by client ID') and resource. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'get_client', which could be ambiguous.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only states the function without context on prerequisites or appropriate scenarios.

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