keycloak-mcp.test

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It conveys that the tool analyzes and returns structured recommendations, implying a read-only analytical operation, but it does not explicitly disclose limitations, side effects, or whether any state is modified. This is adequate but not deeply transparent.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description starts with a crisp purpose sentence, then presents a well-organized bulleted list of input fields, and ends with a brief return statement. It is succinct, front-loaded, and free of redundant or filler content.

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

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

For a tool with a single nested-object parameter, the description thoroughly documents the expected input structure. It also indicates the output nature ('structured analysis and recommendations'). However, specifics about the output format or additional behavior are vague, but this is largely sufficient given the tool's simplicity and lack of output schema.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema only defines 'deployment_info' as an object with additionalProperties: true, leaving all subfields undocumented. The description adds substantial meaning by enumerating expected fields (keycloak_version, deployment_type, database, protocol, cache_type, auth_providers) and even providing allowed values for some, far exceeding schema coverage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

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

The description clearly states a specific action ('Analyze Keycloak deployment configuration') and outcome ('identify potential issues or provide recommendations'). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'explain_keycloak_protocol' or 'keycloak_search' by focusing on deployment analysis rather than explanation or search.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides input context by listing expected fields, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention when not to use it. Sibling names imply distinct purposes, but the description lacks direct usage guidance or exclusions.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions that the tool 'returns description and relevant documentation snippets,' but does not state whether the operation is read-only, requires authentication, or how invalid component types are handled.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, and every word is informative. It efficiently conveys both the core action and the output type without unnecessary filler.

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

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

For a simple one-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the main purpose and parameter semantics. The output schema presumably handles return structure details, so the description is reasonably complete, though it could mention potential limitations or edge cases.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema has one parameter with no description, so the description's enumeration of valid component types (realm, client, user, role, provider, mapper) adds meaningful semantics. It does not specify whether the list is exhaustive or provide formatting details, but it significantly compensates for the 0% schema coverage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

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

The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Explain') and resource ('Keycloak component'), listing six concrete examples (realm, client, user, role, provider, mapper). This distinguishes it from protocol-focused siblings, though it does not explicitly differentiate from the similarly named 'keycloak_explain' tool.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

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 any prerequisites, exclusion criteria, or contrast with sibling tools like 'explain_keycloak_protocol' or 'keycloak_explain'.

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

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

The description discloses that the tool returns descriptions and documentation snippets, and the verb 'explain' strongly implies a read-only operation. However, with no annotations, it does not explicitly state there are no side effects or permission requirements, though for an informational tool this is reasonably covered.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two concise sentences with no unnecessary words. It front-loads the action and resource, then adds the return type, making it both efficient and easy to parse.

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

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

The tool has a single parameter and an output schema, and the description covers the purpose, protocol list, and return format. For a simple explain operation, this is complete and no additional context is required.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema only defines protocol_type as a bare string with no description, but the tool description directly lists the valid values (oidc, saml, oauth2). This fully compensates for the 0% schema description coverage and gives the agent precise input choices.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

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

The description clearly states the verb (explain) and resource (Keycloak protocols), and enumerates the specific protocol types (oidc, saml, oauth2). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like explain_keycloak_component, which likely handles different resource types.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies use when the user needs an explanation of Keycloak protocol details, but it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools such as keycloak_explain or provide when-not-to-use guidance. No alternative tools are mentioned, so the usage guidance is only implicit.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'Search for information' without detailing whether the search is exact or fuzzy, whether it accesses live server data or static documentation, or any side effects. It doesn't address read-only or output behavior, leaving the agent to guess.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two concise sentences, front-loaded with the action and object, and the second sentence adds practical usage context. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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

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

The tool is simple with one parameter and has an output schema, so return values are covered elsewhere. The description gives purpose and usage context, but lacks behavioral transparency as noted, preventing a perfect score.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It implies that config_option is a Keycloak configuration option (like an env var or property), but provides no examples, format, or allowed values beyond the schema's generic string type.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

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

The description uses a specific verb 'Search' and clearly identifies the resource as 'a specific Keycloak configuration option'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like keycloak_search by narrowing to configuration options, environment variables, properties, and server settings.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It explicitly states when to use the tool: 'when the user asks about environment variables, configuration properties, or server settings'. This gives clear context, though it doesn't mention alternatives or when not to use it.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description discloses that the tool 'Returns authoritative snippets from the keycloak/keycloak repo with citations', which is a clear behavioral trait. It does not detail limitations, citation formatting, or how snippets should be presented, but enough is added for a read/explain tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise and front-loaded: the instruction to use it appears immediately, examples are brief, and the return type is stated in a single final sentence. Every sentence earns its place without unnecessary verbosity.

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

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

For a straightforward explain/retrieval tool, the description provides enough context: when to use it, what it returns, and the source. It lacks detail on output formatting or how to handle missing snippets, but given no annotations and no output schema, it covers the essentials for selection and basic invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0% and the description does not directly explain the parameters. It only implies that the required 'topic' parameter should be the user's Keycloak question, but top_k and max_chars are entirely unaddressed. The description does not compensate for the lack of parameter documentation.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

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

The description clearly states this tool is for answering any Keycloak question, with concrete examples like 'how does authentication work?' and 'explain OAuth2 flow'. It positions itself as the general-purpose explain tool but does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like keycloak_search or explain_keycloak_protocol, so it misses full sibling differentiation.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use this tool whenever the user asks ANY question about Keycloak' and even instructs to prefer it before answering from prior knowledge. However, it does not mention when not to use it or point to specific alternatives among the sibling tools, so exclusions are absent.

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

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 describes the non-destructive search behavior and the return format (snippets with file paths and scores), which is transparent about what the tool does. It does not mention rate limits or authentication, but for a read-only search tool this is reasonably adequate.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource. Every word earns its place: 'Semantic search' tells the mode, 'Keycloak repository and documentation' identifies scope, and the second sentence describes the output. No fluff or redundancy.

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

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

The tool is low-complexity with an output schema present, so the description doesn't need to explain return values in detail. However, it lacks usage guidance (when to choose this over siblings) and parameter semantics, making it only partially complete for an agent. It adequately states what it does but not enough surrounding context for confident invocation in all scenarios.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema has 0% description coverage and the description adds no parameter semantics. It does not explain what 'query' should contain or how 'top_k' behaves beyond the schema's default value. The parameter names are self-explanatory, but the description fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions, leaving the agent to guess at expected input formats.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

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

The description clearly states the tool performs 'semantic search' over a specific resource ('Keycloak repository and documentation') and describes the output (snippets with file paths and scores). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like explain_keycloak_component or analyze_keycloak_deployment, which focus on explanation and analysis.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies when to use the tool (when searching for relevant code or documentation snippets), but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare to alternatives. For example, it doesn't mention that explain or reference tools should be used for explanations rather than raw search. This is implied but not explicit.

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