mcp-keycloak

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Get') and return type ('List of default groups'), but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or whether it's a read-only operation. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that interacts with realm data.

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 brief and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by structured sections for Args and Returns. It avoids unnecessary words, but the Args section could be more integrated into the main text for better flow, keeping it efficient overall.

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 has an output schema and a simple input schema, the description covers the basic purpose and parameter semantics adequately. However, with no annotations and multiple sibling tools, it lacks context on behavioral traits and usage differentiation, making it incomplete for optimal agent guidance.

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?

The description adds meaningful context for the single parameter 'realm' by explaining it as the 'Target realm (uses default if not specified)', which clarifies its optional nature and default behavior. Since schema description coverage is 0%, this compensates well, though it doesn't detail format or constraints beyond what's implied.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('default groups for the realm'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_groups' or 'get_group', which might list all groups or retrieve specific groups, leaving some ambiguity in sibling differentiation.

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, such as 'list_groups' or 'get_group'. It mentions the 'realm' parameter but offers no context on prerequisites, exclusions, or typical use cases, relying solely on the tool name for implied usage.

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