keycloak-mcp-server

update-protocol-mapper

Modify an existing protocol mapper for a client by providing its mapper ID and updated settings, including name, protocol, and configuration.

Instructions

Update a protocol mapper for a client

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>",
      "clientId": "<clientId>",
      "mapperId": "<mapperId>",
      "name": "<name>",
      "protocol": "<protocol>",
      "protocolMapper": "<protocolMapper>"
    },
    "name": "update-protocol-mapper"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	Yes	Protocol mapper name
`realm`	Yes	Realm name
`config`	No	Protocol mapper configuration
`clientId`	Yes	Client ID
`mapperId`	Yes	Protocol mapper ID
`protocol`	Yes	Protocol
`protocolMapper`	Yes	Protocol mapper type

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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Update' which implies mutation, but does not disclose whether the operation is a full replacement, whether it is idempotent, what happens to existing configuration, or any required permissions. No side effects or response details are provided.

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 wording. It is appropriately front-loaded and contains only the essential action statement. There is no wasted text, achieving maximum conciseness.

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?

Despite having 7 parameters and a nested config object, the description is extremely minimal. It lacks behavioral context, expected effects, or guidance on how the tool fits into the broader client update workflow. The absence of annotations and output schema further compounds the incompleteness.

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 provides descriptions for all 7 parameters (100% coverage), including 'name', 'protocol', 'protocolMapper', and 'config'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 but does not exceed it.

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 'Update a protocol mapper for a client' clearly identifies the action (update), the resource (protocol mapper), and the scope (for a client). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like update-client-scope-protocol-mapper or update-identity-provider-mapper, though it does not elaborate on what the update entails.

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. It does not mention that it is specifically for client-level protocol mappers, nor does it contrast with client-scope or identity-provider mapper updates. There are no usage prerequisites or scenarios.

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

Deploy Server