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. It states this is a read operation ('Get information'), implying it's non-destructive, but doesn't cover behavioral aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what 'current realm' means in context. This is inadequate 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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by concise sections for arguments and returns. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it 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 low complexity (one optional parameter) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks context about the realm concept, doesn't explain sibling relationships, and with no annotations, leaves behavioral gaps. A score of 3 reflects this basic but incomplete coverage.

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: 'Target realm (uses default if not specified).' This clarifies the optional nature and default behavior, which compensates for the 0% schema description coverage. Since there's only one parameter, the baseline is 4, and the description provides useful semantics beyond the schema.

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 information about the current realm.' It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('current realm'), making the action clear. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_accessible_realms' or 'update_realm_settings', which would require a 5.

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 doesn't mention sibling tools like 'get_accessible_realms' for listing realms or 'update_realm_settings' for modifying realm data, leaving the agent without context for tool selection.

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