openclaw-control-mcp

openclaw_config_schema_lookup

Retrieve the schema description for a given configuration path to understand its structure and constraints.

Instructions

Look up the schema description for a specific config path. Wraps config.schema.lookup. Read-only.

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": {
      "path": "<path>"
    },
    "name": "openclaw_config_schema_lookup"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`path`	Yes	Dotted path to look up
`instance`	No	Optional OpenClaw instance to route this call to (e.g. 'default', 'work'). Falls back to the active default instance, or the OPENCLAW_GATEWAY_URL/TOKEN env vars when set. List configured instances with openclaw_setup_list.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.7.0Jul 28, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It states 'Read-only', which indicates no side effects, but does not mention authentication needs, rate limits, or error conditions. It is adequate but lacks depth.

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 extremely concise with two short sentences. It front-loads the key action 'Look up the schema description' and adds an implementation reference ('Wraps config.schema.lookup'). No wasted words.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no output schema, 2 params), the description is mostly adequate. However, it does not describe the return format or behavior when path is invalid, which would complete the picture.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions. It simply restates the purpose without explaining parameter use or format.

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 states the tool looks up the schema description for a config path. It uses specific verb 'look up' and resource 'config path', distinguishing it from sibling tools like config_get (which gets values) or config_schema (which might show all schemas).

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies when to use it (to get schema description) but does not provide explicit when-not-to-use guidance or mention alternative tools for similar tasks, such as openclaw_config_get or openclaw_config_schema.

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

Deploy Server