keycloak-mcp-server

list-client-scope-protocol-mappers

List protocol mappers assigned to a client scope in a Keycloak realm to inspect their types, configurations, and associated claims.

Instructions

List protocol mappers for 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>"
    },
    "name": "list-client-scope-protocol-mappers"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`realm`	Yes	Realm name
`clientScopeId`	Yes	Client scope ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.0.0Aug 14, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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. The verb 'list' implies a read-only operation, which is a useful signal, but the description does not elaborate on response format, pagination, filtering, permissions, or any side effects. For a simple list operation, this is minimally adequate but lacks depth.

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, focused sentence with no redundant words or filler. It front-loads the action and resource, making it immediately scannable and valuable.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a two-parameter list operation with no output schema, the description gives the core purpose and leaves little ambiguity about the operation's intent. However, it does not describe the shape of the returned list, any default ordering, or whether there are system limits, which could be helpful. Given the low complexity, the description is mostly complete.

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 provides descriptions for both parameters ('Realm name' and 'Client scope ID'), achieving 100% coverage. The tool description adds no additional meaning or context for these parameters, 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.

Purpose5/5

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

The description uses the specific verb 'list' and identifies the resource as 'protocol mappers' with the scope modifier 'for a client scope', clearly distinguishing it from the sibling 'list-protocol-mappers' which likely applies to clients. This provides a precise and unambiguous purpose.

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 on when to use this tool versus the similar 'list-protocol-mappers' or 'list-identity-provider-mappers' tools. The description does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative tools, leaving the agent to infer the intended usage solely from the name.

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

Deploy Server