keycloak-mcp-server

update-role

Update role attributes such as name and description in Keycloak. Specify realm and current role name to modify existing roles.

Instructions

Modify role attributes

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>",
      "roleName": "<roleName>"
    },
    "name": "update-role"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`realm`	Yes	Realm name
`newName`	No	New role name
`clientId`	No	Client ID for client roles
`roleName`	Yes	Current role name
`description`	No	Role description

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 burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Modify role attributes' with no detail on permissions, reversibility, whether existing attributes are replaced or merged, or any side effects. This is minimal and comparable to the low-transparency example.

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, front-loaded sentence with zero wasted words. It is efficient, though it sacrifices detail; however, conciseness focuses on structure, and this is well-structured for its minimal length.

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 mutation tool with five parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description is grossly incomplete. It does not explain what attributes can be modified, the effect of omitting optional parameters, or any constraints. This is a significant gap for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all five parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, but per the rubric, the baseline is 3 when schema coverage is high, and the description does not need to compensate.

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 'Modify role attributes' clearly conveys that this tool updates a role's properties, using a specific verb and resource. However, it does not distinguish from sibling tool 'update-role-by-id', which also modifies roles, so it lacks sibling differentiation.

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 alternatives like 'update-role-by-id' or 'delete-role'. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or suitable scenarios, leaving the usage context entirely implicit.

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

Deploy Server