mcp-keycloak

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves data ('Get'), implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify permissions required, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens if the client or service account doesn't exist. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by clear sections for Args and Returns. It uses minimal sentences without waste, though the 'Returns' section could be slightly more informative (e.g., hinting at the object structure). Overall, it's efficient and easy to parse.

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

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

Given the tool's moderate complexity (2 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is partially complete. It covers the basic purpose and parameters but lacks behavioral context (e.g., error handling) and usage guidelines. The presence of an output schema means return values are documented elsewhere, reducing the burden, but overall gaps remain for effective agent use.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by explaining that 'id' is 'The client's database ID' and 'realm' is 'Target realm (uses default if not specified)', which clarifies beyond the schema's generic titles. However, it doesn't detail format constraints (e.g., ID structure) or realm options, leaving some ambiguity. With 2 parameters partially documented, a baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get service account user for a client.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('service account user'), distinguishing it from siblings like get_client or get_user. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from tools like get_client_secret, which might be similar in scope but target different resources.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., client existence), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like get_client or get_user, which might retrieve related but different data. This leaves the agent without clear usage direction.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.