GoClaw MCP Server

goclaw_mcp_server_create

Register a new MCP server in GoClaw by specifying server name, transport type, and configuration details to manage AI gateway infrastructure.

Instructions

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": {
      "name": "<name>",
      "transport": "<transport>"
    },
    "name": "goclaw_mcp_server_create"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	Yes	Server name
`transport`	Yes	Transport type
`command`	No	Command to run (stdio transport)
`args`	No	Command arguments (stdio transport)
`url`	No	Server URL (HTTP transports)
`headers`	No	HTTP headers
`api_key`	No	API key for authentication
`env`	No	Environment variables
`enabled`	No	Enable on creation (default: true)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Mar 15, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Register' implies a write/mutation operation, but the description doesn't mention permissions required, whether this is idempotent, what happens on duplicate names, or what the response contains. For a creation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in behavioral context.

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, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's appropriately sized for a tool with comprehensive schema documentation and gets straight to the point without unnecessary elaboration.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a creation tool with 9 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimal but functional. The 100% schema coverage helps compensate, but the description itself doesn't provide context about what 'registration' entails, what happens after creation, or how this fits into the broader MCP server lifecycle. It's adequate but leaves gaps in understanding the tool's role and behavior.

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 schema already documents all 9 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting for parameter documentation.

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 states the action ('Register') and resource ('new MCP server in GoClaw'), providing specific verb+resource pairing. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like goclaw_mcp_server_update or goclaw_mcp_server_list, which would require mentioning this is specifically for creation/registration.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like goclaw_mcp_server_update or goclaw_mcp_server_list. There's no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or when this specific creation tool is appropriate versus other MCP server operations.

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

Deploy Server