openclaw-control-mcp

openclaw_exec_approvals_node_get

Retrieve the per-node execution approvals policy override for a given node ID. This read-only tool returns the current policy.

Instructions

Get the per-node exec approvals policy override. Wraps exec.approvals.node.get. 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": {
      "nodeId": "<nodeId>"
    },
    "name": "openclaw_exec_approvals_node_get"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`nodeId`	Yes	Node id
`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

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

The description states 'Read-only' which indicates no side effects, but provides no further behavioral details such as what happens if the node doesn't exist, authorization requirements, or error handling. Without annotations, the agent needs more context about the tool's behavior.

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?

Very concise: two sentences covering purpose and a key behavioral note (read-only). No extraneous information.

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 simple read tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate but lacks details about the return value, error conditions, and when to prefer this over sibling tools. However, given the low complexity, it is mostly complete.

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?

Both parameters have descriptive names and schema descriptions (nodeId: 'Node id', instance: routing info). The description adds only the wrapped function name, which is marginally helpful. Since schema coverage is 100%, the description adds little beyond what is already present.

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?

Clearly states the tool retrieves the per-node exec approvals policy override. The verb 'Get' and resource are explicit. However, it does not distinguish from similar sibling tools like openclaw_exec_approval_get or openclaw_exec_approvals_get, so an agent might be uncertain which to use for node-specific vs general approval retrieval.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like openclaw_exec_approval_get. The description only states what it does, not when it is appropriate or when to avoid it. This leaves the agent without decision-making support.

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

Deploy Server