Skip to main content
Glama
kiuru

OpenClaw MCP Server

by kiuru
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
TypeScript
Local

Server Quality Checklist

67%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v0.1.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    Each tool has a distinct purpose: balance retrieval, invoice retrieval, and server info. The two RMappi tools are clearly differentiated by their function (balance vs invoices), and the third is entirely separate. No ambiguity.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    All tools follow a consistent naming pattern: 'openclaw_' + verb_noun (get_rmappi_balance, get_rmappi_invoices, server_info). The pattern is uniform and predictable.

    Tool Count3/5

    With only 3 tools, the server feels minimal. While it covers balance and invoices for RMappi, the scope is narrow. The count is acceptable for a focused utility but could be expanded.

    Completeness2/5

    The domain appears to be RMappi/Osuria financial operations, but only balance and invoices are covered. Missing common operations like listing accounts, transaction history, or payments leaves significant gaps.

  • Average 4.5/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.

    See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 7 commits in the last 12 weeks
    • No stable releases found
    • No critical vulnerability alerts
    • No high-severity vulnerability alerts
    • No code scanning findings
    • CI status not available

  • This repository is licensed under Apache 2.0.

  • This repository includes a README.md file.

  • No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.

    Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.

  • Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.

  • If you are the author, simply .

    If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:

    {
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}

    Then . Browse examples.

  • Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

  • Behavior4/5

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

    Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint. The description adds that it does not call external services, enhancing transparency beyond the structured fields.

    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?

    Two short sentences with no wasted words. First sentence states purpose, second adds safety context. Highly concise and front-loaded.

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

    Completeness5/5

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

    For a simple informational tool with full annotations and output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: what it returns, that it's read-only, and that it doesn't call external services. No gaps.

    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 single parameter 'response_format' is fully described in the schema with enum and description. The tool description does not add extra meaning, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

    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?

    Description clearly states it returns basic information about the OpenClaw MCP server and registered toolsets. It is distinct from siblings which deal with specific RMAPPI data, making the purpose unambiguous.

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

    Usage Guidelines4/5

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

    While it implies usage for server info and notes read-only nature and no external calls, it does not explicitly contrast with siblings or provide when-not-to-use instructions. Still, the context is clear.

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

  • Behavior5/5

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

    The description discloses the full automation flow: login to app.osuria.com, session token retrieval, API call, logout, and browser closure. It also clarifies that the access token is never returned. This adds significant value beyond the readOnlyHint and destructiveHint annotations.

    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 structured logically: first a usage summary, then step-by-step details. Each sentence adds necessary information without redundancy. It could be slightly more concise but is efficient for a tool with automation steps.

    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?

    Given the presence of an output schema, the description does not need to detail return values. It covers authentication, defaults, and the overall process. The only minor gap is error handling (e.g., login failure), but the description remains adequately complete for its intended use.

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

    Parameters4/5

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

    Both parameters are fully covered in the schema. The description adds useful context about default behavior (current local year/month) and how to interpret when omitted. This clarifies ambiguity beyond the schema descriptions.

    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 clearly specifies the tool is for retrieving RMappi/Osuria invoices, including related terms like 'laskut', 'voucher numbers', and 'invoice totals'. It distinguishes from siblings by naming the tool and its resource, and the sibling tools have different purposes.

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

    Usage Guidelines4/5

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

    The description provides clear usage context: 'Use this tool when the user asks for RMappi/Osuria invoices...' and gives specific queries. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context is sufficiently directive given the sibling tools.

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

  • Behavior5/5

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

    The description goes beyond annotations by detailing the login process, reading the balance page, logging out, and closing the browser. It specifies credentials are read from environment variables with a fallback. This adds significant behavioral context beyond readOnlyHint and destructiveHint.

    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, well-structured paragraph. It front-loads the use case, then concisely explains the process and credential source. No extraneous information is present.

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

    Completeness5/5

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

    Given the tool has no parameters and an output schema exists, the description covers all necessary context: when to use, what it does, and how credentials are handled. It is complete for the tool's simplicity.

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

    Parameters4/5

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

    There are zero parameters, so the schema covers everything. With no parameters, a baseline of 4 is appropriate; the description adds no parameter-specific detail because none is needed.

    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 explicitly states the tool is for when the user asks for 'RMappi/Osuria saldo, bank balance, available funds, or taloyhtion tilin saldo', clearly identifying the verb (get balance) and resource (RMappi/Osuria). It distinguishes from sibling tools (invoices, server info) by its specific use case.

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

    Usage Guidelines4/5

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

    The description provides clear guidance on when to use the tool ('when the user asks for...'). It doesn't explicitly state when not to use, but the context of siblings and the specific query terms imply appropriate usage. The credential fallback note is additional useful context.

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

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

  • Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
  • Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
  • Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

openclaw-mcp-tools MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

openclaw-mcp-tools MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/kiuru/openclaw-mcp-tools'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server