keycloak-mcp

get_password_update_events

Retrieve password update events from Keycloak by specifying a date range and result limit. Use this data to audit password changes and track credential update activity across users.

Instructions

Get password update events.

Args: date_from: Start date (YYYY-MM-DD). Defaults to last 24h when omitted (KEYCLOAK_DEFAULT_DATE_FROM_HOURS). date_to: End date (YYYY-MM-DD). max_results: Maximum results (default 100).

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "get_password_update_events"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`date_to`	No
`date_from`	No
`max_results`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0May 27, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description must carry the full burden. It reveals parameter behavior (date range, default) but omits traits like read-only nature, rate limits, or response format. It partially covers behavioral context.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise: one line for purpose followed by parameter documentation. It is front-loaded and efficient, though the parameter section is a bit verbose with repetition of 'Args:' and parameter names.

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?

The description covers parameter details and purpose but lacks context about the tool's scope (e.g., realm-wide vs user-specific) and does not mention that the tool is read-only. With an output schema present, return values are not required, but additional behavioral context would improve completeness.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 0% schema coverage, the description compensates by specifying date format (YYYY-MM-DD) and defaults for date_from and max_results. It adds meaning beyond the schema's basic type/default fields, though the meaning of max_results is not fully explained.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves 'password update events', a specific resource. The name and description differentiate it from sibling tools like 'get_events' (generic) and 'get_admin_events'.

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 provides parameter defaults and date format but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. The usage context is implied by the tool's name and purpose, not explicitly guided.

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