Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
openclaw-mcp

openclaw-mcp

by GabrielBertoli
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

openclaw_spawn_agent

Delegate a task to a sub-agent by providing its ID and a task description. Optionally specify a model override.

Instructions

Spawn an OpenClaw sub-agent to perform a task

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": {
      "agent_id": "<agent_id>",
      "task": "<task>"
    },
    "name": "openclaw_spawn_agent"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
taskYesTask description for the agent
modelNoOptional model override for the agent
agent_idYesAgent identifier to spawn (e.g. "main", "dev")

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.1.1

TDQS

C2.4/5.0
Behavior1/5

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

There are no annotations, and the description does not disclose key behaviors such as whether spawning is synchronous, how results are returned, resource implications, or error handling. The description adds minimal beyond the name.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

The description is a single short sentence, but it largely restates the tool name and lacks substantive specification. It is under-specified rather than appropriately concise.

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

Completeness1/5

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

Given the tool has 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain how to use the spawned agent, how to retrieve results, or what happens after spawning, leaving major gaps for an AI agent.

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 the baseline is 3. The description does not add extra meaning to parameters beyond the schema, but the schema provides reasonable descriptions for task, model, and agent_id.

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 clearly identifies the action (spawn) and the resource (OpenClaw sub-agent) with a task. It distinguishes from siblings like chat or status, though the phrase 'perform a task' is somewhat generic.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or how it relates to other tools like openclaw_chat or openclaw_task_status.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools