Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
mcp-keycloak

mcp-keycloak

by idoyudha
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

remove_user_from_group

Remove a user from a specified group in a Keycloak realm. Returns a status message confirming the action.

Instructions

Remove a user from a group.

Args:
    user_id: User ID
    group_id: Group ID
    realm: Target realm (uses default if not specified)

Returns:
    Status message

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": {
      "user_id": "<user_id>",
      "group_id": "<group_id>"
    },
    "name": "remove_user_from_group"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
user_idYes
group_idYes
realmNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It only states the action and return type ('Status message'), omitting side effects, required permissions, or any constraints. The destructive nature is implied but not explicitly disclosed.

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 concise with two sentences and a bullet-like args list. It is front-loaded with the purpose and has no redundant content. Every sentence adds value.

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 tool with 3 parameters and no enums, the description covers purpose, parameters, and return value. However, it misses usage guidelines and behavioral context (e.g., prerequisites, error cases), leaving gaps in completeness.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description adds some meaning beyond titles. It briefly explains each parameter: user_id, group_id, and realm with default behavior. However, it lacks format details or allowed values, making it minimally adequate.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description starts with 'Remove a user from a group,' which is a clear verb+resource statement. This effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'add_user_to_group' and 'remove_realm_default_group.'

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools (add_user_to_group, remove_realm_role_from_user), explicit usage context is missing, leaving the agent without decision support.

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