Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
keycloak-mcp-server

keycloak-mcp-server

by thebylito
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

delete-identity-provider

Remove an identity provider from a Keycloak realm using its alias. Useful for cleaning up or revoking external identity provider integrations.

Instructions

Delete an identity provider

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>",
      "alias": "<alias>"
    },
    "name": "delete-identity-provider"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
aliasYesIdentity provider alias
realmYesRealm name

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv2.0.0

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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Delete an identity provider' but does not mention any side effects, prerequisites, reversibility, or impact on associated mappers. This is a significant gap 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.

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is a single sentence, extremely brief and front-loaded. However, it repeats the tool name without adding value, so it doesn't fully 'earn its place,' though it remains concise.

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 simple tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description might be minimally sufficient, but because it is a delete operation with no mention of consequences or related resources (e.g., mappers), it feels incomplete. The tool would benefit from noting impact or prerequisite steps.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters ('Identity provider alias' and 'Realm name'). The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, 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.

Purpose4/5

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

The description clearly states the action ('Delete') and the resource ('an identity provider'), making the purpose unambiguous. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete-identity-provider-mapper', but the identity provider vs. mapper distinction is implicit.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives, or any context about when deletion is appropriate. It simply restates the operation without offering usage scenarios or exclusions.

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