Skip to main content
Glama
dfridkin

clawops

by dfridkin
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

Unset OpenClaw Config Key

clawops_config_unset
DestructiveIdempotent

Remove a configuration key from the remote OpenClaw gateway config to revert to default. Use to delete keys like channels or overrides.

Instructions

Remove a configuration key from the remote OpenClaw gateway config, reverting it to the OpenClaw default.

Use when: the user wants to delete a config key entirely (e.g., remove a channel, clear an override).

Do NOT use when: the user wants to set the key to a new value — use clawops_config_set instead.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
keyYesDot-path config key to remove
restartNoRestart the gateway so the removal takes effect. Without it the key is removed and the running gateway keeps the old value
stackNameNoWhich stack's gateway config to write. Omitted = the default stack in ~/.clawops/config.json

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changedv2.1.3
    • addedInput schema / properties / key / description
      Added value: +"Dot-path config key to remove"
    • addedInput schema / properties / restart / description
      Added value: +"Restart the gateway so the removal takes effect. Without it the key is removed and the running gateway keeps the old value"
    • addedInput schema / properties / stackName / description
      Added value: +"Which stack's gateway config to write. Omitted = the default stack in ~/.clawops/config.json"
  2. First observedv2.1.1

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds genuinely useful context: the removal reverts to the OpenClaw default and, as implied by the restart parameter, does not affect the running gateway until a restart. No contradiction with annotations.

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 tight and front-loaded: the core action and outcome come first, followed by structured use/don't-use guidance. Every sentence earns its place; no filler or redundant restatement of the title.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a simple 3-parameter mutation tool, the schema covers all parameters, annotations cover destructive/idempotent behavior, and the description supplies alternative routing. There is no output schema, so no return-value expectation exists. A minor gap is that the description does not explicitly flag irreversibility or failure modes, but overall it is sufficient.

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 every parameter (key, restart, stackName) is already documented with meaningful descriptions. The tool description adds no parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema provides, warranting the baseline 3.

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 a specific verb ('Remove') and resource ('configuration key from the remote OpenClaw gateway config'), and spells out the result ('reverting it to the OpenClaw default'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like clawops_config_set and clawops_config_get without needing to inspect schemas.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicit 'Use when' and 'Do NOT use when' sections give unambiguous routing criteria and name the exact alternative (clawops_config_set) for the contrasting case. An agent can decide with zero inference.

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