Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
@mgcrea/mcp-keycloak

@mgcrea/mcp-keycloak

by mgcrea
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

keycloak_get_client_scope

Read-only

Retrieve a Keycloak client scope's details and its protocol mappers by scope UUID. Use this to inspect a specific scope's configuration for a given realm.

Instructions

Get one client scope with its protocol mappers.

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": {
      "scopeId": "<scopeId>"
    },
    "name": "keycloak_get_client_scope"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
realmNoRealm to operate on. Defaults to the server's configured realm (KEYCLOAK_REALM).
scopeIdYesClient scope UUID.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the safety profile. The description adds the useful detail that protocol mappers are included in the result, but it does not disclose behavior on missing scope IDs, format of response, or any other operational traits.

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 a single, short, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. Every part adds useful information about the tool's purpose and return content.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a simple, read-only, two-parameter retrieval tool, the description is sufficiently complete. It names the resource and the expected included content, and the lack of an output schema is offset by the simplicity of the operation.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters adequately. The description does not add extra parameter-level meaning beyond implying that scopeId selects the specific scope.

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 specifies a clear verb ('Get'), a precise resource ('one client scope'), and adds a distinguishing detail ('with its protocol mappers'). This clearly separates it from list-oriented siblings like keycloak_list_client_scopes and from other getters.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies usage when a single client scope is needed by UUID, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives such as keycloak_list_client_scopes. No when-not or alternative guidance is provided.

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