keycloak-mcp-server

delete-client-scope-protocol-mapper

Remove a protocol mapper from a Keycloak client scope by providing realm, client scope ID, and mapper ID.

Instructions

Delete a protocol mapper from a client scope

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>",
      "clientScopeId": "<clientScopeId>",
      "mapperId": "<mapperId>"
    },
    "name": "delete-client-scope-protocol-mapper"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`realm`	Yes	Realm name
`mapperId`	Yes	Protocol mapper ID
`clientScopeId`	Yes	Client scope ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.0.0Aug 14, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action 'delete' without mentioning permanence, required permissions, or potential side effects. This is insufficient for a destructive operation.

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 concise sentence: 'Delete a protocol mapper from a client scope'. It is front-loaded, contains no unnecessary words, and is appropriately sized for the simple operation it describes.

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 delete tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too minimal. It fails to provide crucial context about irreversibility, prerequisites (e.g., the mapper must exist), or any safety warnings. The simple operation still needs more behavioral context than one sentence.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with each of the three parameters (realm, clientScopeId, mapperId) having a brief explanation. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, aligning with the baseline for high coverage.

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 is specific: 'Delete a protocol mapper from a client scope' clearly states the verb (delete) and resource (protocol mapper) with the scope (client scope), distinguishing it from sibling tools like delete-protocol-mapper or delete-client-scope.

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 by specifying the exact resource and scope, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives such as delete-protocol-mapper or explain when this tool should be preferred. No when-not-to-use 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