keycloak-mcp-server

create-composite-role

Create composite roles by aggregating existing roles into hierarchical structures, simplifying permission management in Keycloak realms.

Instructions

Create composite roles (role hierarchies)

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": {
      "realm": "<realm>",
      "roleId": "<roleId>",
      "roles": "<roles>"
    },
    "name": "create-composite-role"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`realm`	Yes	Realm name
`roles`	Yes	Array of roles to compose
`roleId`	Yes	Role ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.0.0Aug 14, 2026

TDQS

C2.7/5.0

Behavior1/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It merely states the action and a synonym for composite; it does not mention permissions, side effects, idempotency, prerequisites, or what happens to existing roles. There is no added context beyond the tool's name.

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 a single sentence with no wasted words, making it concise and front-loaded. However, it is arguably under-specified, so it loses a point for not balancing brevity with necessary detail.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a moderately complex tool creating role hierarchies, the description and schema provide minimal context. There is no explanation of the relationship between roleId and roles, whether roles must already exist, or what the resulting composite role structure looks like. No output schema or annotations compensate.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning; 'role hierarchies' is a general concept but does not clarify how 'roleId' and 'roles' interact.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description uses a specific verb and resource: 'Create composite roles', and adds a clarifying parenthetical 'role hierarchies' that distinguishes it from simple role creation. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'create-role' or point to alternatives.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'create-role' or 'update-role'. The phrase 'role hierarchies' implies a use case but it is not explicit about when to choose this over related role tools.

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

Deploy Server