keycloak_list_identity_providers

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

With readOnlyHint=true already covering the safe read-only nature, the description adds value by warning that client secrets are redacted in the results, which is a non-obvious behavioral trait. It also provides useful domain context that identity providers are external login sources. This exceeds the baseline set by the annotations without contradicting them.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the action and resource, then provides parenthetical examples and a useful redaction note. Every element earns its place and there is no redundant filler.

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?

For a simple read-only listing tool with one optional parameter, the description covers the purpose, the domain concept, and an important output detail about redacted secrets. It does not explicitly mention the return shape, but that is largely inferable for a list operation. A brief pointer to the singular get_identity_provider tool would make it fully complete.

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 sole parameter 'realm' is fully documented in the input schema, including its default behavior via KEYCLOAK_REALM, so schema description coverage is 100%. The description text itself adds no extra parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource, 'List the realm's identity providers', and clarifies what identity providers are with concrete examples like Google, GitHub, SAML, and OIDC IdP. The plural 'List' clearly distinguishes this from the sibling keycloak_get_identity_provider without requiring the agent to open either schema.

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 clearly implies that this tool is for enumerating all identity providers in the realm. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer keycloak_get_identity_provider for a single provider or keycloak_list_identity_provider_mappers for mappers. The context is clear, but exclusions and alternatives are left implicit.

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