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 this is a 'Get' operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't cover aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what 'events configuration' entails. This is a significant gap for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 'Args' and 'Returns' sections. There's no wasted text, though the lack of detailed guidance reduces overall effectiveness. The structure is efficient but under-specified.

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 one parameter with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It mentions the parameter and return type, and an output schema exists, so return values needn't be detailed. However, it lacks context on permissions, errors, or realm specifics, leaving gaps for the agent.

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 minimal value by noting the 'realm' parameter is optional with a default, but doesn't explain what a 'realm' is, its format, or implications of using the default. This partially addresses the schema gap but remains insufficient for full clarity.

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 ('realm events configuration'), making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes this from siblings like 'update_realm_events_config' by specifying retrieval rather than modification. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with other read-only siblings like 'get_realm_info', leaving minor room for improvement.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or comparisons with similar tools like 'get_realm_info' or 'get_accessible_realms'. This leaves the agent without explicit usage direction.

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