keycloak-mcp-server

update-client-scope

Update an existing Keycloak client scope by supplying the realm and client scope ID, with optional fields for name, protocol, attributes, and description.

Instructions

Update an existing 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": "update-client-scope"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	No	Client scope name
`realm`	Yes	Realm name
`protocol`	No	Protocol
`attributes`	No	Client scope attributes
`description`	No	Client scope description
`clientScopeId`	Yes	Client scope ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.0.0Aug 14, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are present, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only says 'update', which implies mutation, but does not mention whether updates are partial or full, required permissions, idempotency, or side effects on related resources. This leaves significant behavioral ambiguity.

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, direct sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently states the action and target, making it perfectly front-loaded and economical.

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?

With six parameters, a nested object, and no output schema or annotations, the description must provide substantial context. However, it only offers a minimal verb phrase, leaving unclear how the update behaves, what is required, and what the outcome is. This is inadequate for the tool's complexity.

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 schema has 100% description coverage for all six parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description itself adds no parameter-level detail, but it does not need to because the schema already documents each field. No extra meaning is provided beyond the schema.

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 clear verb 'update' with the specific resource 'client scope', and the word 'existing' distinguishes it from creation or retrieval tools. This directly contrasts with sibling tools like create-client-scope, delete-client-scope, and list-client-scopes.

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 versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. It simply states the operation without context, such as requiring an existing client scope ID or when to prefer update-client-scope-protocol-mapper.

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

Deploy Server