Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
openclaw-control-mcp

openclaw-control-mcp

by smurfy92
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

openclaw_doctor_memory_status

Assess memory subsystem health: short-term store, dream diary, and grounding state. Read-only check for instance diagnostics.

Instructions

Get the memory subsystem health (short-term store, dream diary, grounding state). Wraps doctor.memory.status. Read-only.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "openclaw_doctor_memory_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
instanceNoOptional 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.

  1. First observedv0.7.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations provided; description states it is read-only and wraps doctor.memory.status, but lacks details on potential side effects or what happens if the subsystem is unhealthy.

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 sentences, no wasted words, front-loaded with purpose. Efficient and clear.

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 simplicity (no output schema, one optional param), the description is adequate. Could mention return format but not necessary for basic understanding.

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% for the one parameter (instance), so the description adds no additional meaning. Baseline 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?

The description clearly states it gets the memory subsystem health, specifying components (short-term store, dream diary, grounding state). It uses a specific verb 'Get' and resource, distinguishing it from sibling memory tools.

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 usage for checking memory health but does not explicitly state when to use it vs alternatives or provide exclusions. No guidance on when not to use it.

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