openclaw-control-mcp

openclaw_config_set

Replace a config value at a given dotted path with a new JSON-serializable value. Destructive overwrites the previous value.

Instructions

Replace a config value at a given path. Wraps config.set. Destructive — overwrites the previous value. Prefer openclaw_config_patch for partial updates.

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_set"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`path`	Yes	Dotted path of the config key to set
`value`	No	New value — any JSON-serializable value (string, number, boolean, object, array, null). Passthrough: no schema enforced because the gateway config tree is open-typed.
`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

A4.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Describes the tool as 'Destructive — overwrites the previous value,' which is a key behavioral trait. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden; it adds this critical detail but omits others like authorization requirements, side effects, or reversibility, leaving gaps.

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?

Three concise sentences: first states the action, second adds a keyword and destructiveness, third provides an alternative. No redundant information; every sentence serves a purpose.

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 tool's low complexity (3 params, all described) and no output schema, the description covers purpose, parameters, and usage guidelines adequately. However, it does not mention what the function returns (e.g., success indication or the new value), which is a minor gap.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for all parameters, but the description adds value beyond the schema by stating that the path is dotted and that value is 'passthrough' with no schema enforced. It also explains the fallback logic for the instance parameter. This extra context justifies a score above the baseline of 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?

Clear verb+resource ('Replace a config value') and distinguishes from sibling 'openclaw_config_patch' for partial updates. The description explicitly states what the tool does and how it differs from a similar tool.

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?

Explicitly recommends preferring openclaw_config_patch for partial updates, guiding the agent away from this tool when a less destructive operation is suitable. However, no other usage scenarios or when-not-to-use conditions are mentioned beyond that.

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

Deploy Server