openclaw-control-mcp

openclaw_exec_approval_request

Programmatically submit an exec approval request to manage agent workflow approvals.

Instructions

Submit a new exec approval request (programmatic; normally agents do this themselves). Wraps exec.approval.request.

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_exec_approval_request"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`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

A3.5/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. The description only says it 'wraps exec.approval.request' but does not mention authentication requirements, side effects, rate limits, or potential failure modes. This is insufficient for a tool that submits requests.

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 that convey the core purpose and a key usage hint. Every sentence adds value 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?

With no output schema and a single parameter, the description adequately explains what the tool does but lacks details on return values, error scenarios, or the approval workflow. It is minimally complete but leaves gaps for a tool that initiates an important process.

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?

There is only one optional parameter 'instance' with a thorough description in the schema (100% coverage). The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so 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 the tool's purpose: submitting a new exec approval request. It also notes that this is a programmatic operation, normally done by agents, which differentiates it from sibling tools like openclaw_exec_approval_list or openclaw_exec_approval_resolve.

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 that agents normally perform this action themselves, suggesting the AI agent might not need to call it directly. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or what prerequisites exist (e.g., needing an active session). The guidance is minimal.

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

Deploy Server