keycloak-mcp-server

delete-identity-provider-mapper

Delete an identity provider mapper from a Keycloak realm by providing realm, alias, and mapper ID. This removes the mapper configuration.

Instructions

Delete an identity provider mapper

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>",
      "mapperId": "<mapperId>"
    },
    "name": "delete-identity-provider-mapper"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`alias`	Yes	Identity provider alias
`realm`	Yes	Realm name
`mapperId`	Yes	Mapper ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.0.0Aug 14, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility. It only states the deletion action without disclosing consequences, reversibility, required permissions, or side effects—a significant gap for a destructive tool.

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 concise sentence with zero waste. However, it is essentially a restatement of the tool name and adds little value beyond the name itself, making it efficient but minimal.

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 deletion tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description lacks behavioral context such as idempotency, side effects, prerequisites, or post-conditions. This makes it incomplete for an agent to fully understand the impact.

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 already documents all three parameters (realm, alias, mapperId) with descriptions, providing 100% coverage. The description adds no extra parameter meaning, 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 'Delete an identity provider mapper' with a specific verb and resource, making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from sibling tools like update/get/list by the delete action, though it lacks additional scoping details.

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 is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, alternatives, or conditions under which deletion should occur.

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

Deploy Server