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

openclaw-control-mcp

by smurfy92
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

openclaw_node_list

List all nodes (workers, canvases, sub-gateways) registered with the gateway. This read-only tool returns the current set of active instances.

Instructions

List nodes registered with this gateway (worker / canvas / sub-gateway nodes). Wraps node.list. 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_node_list"
  }
}

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

B3.4/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only says 'Read-only' but does not disclose pagination, rate limits, auth needs, or any side effects. The mention of wrapping `node.list` is vague.

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 only two lines, front-loaded with the key action, and no wasted words. Every sentence serves a purpose.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description is too brief. It does not explain the return format, pagination behavior, or how to interpret the list of nodes. This is insufficient for a list tool.

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%, so the parameter 'instance' is well-described in the schema. The description does not add additional meaning, but baseline is 3 due to high coverage.

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 lists nodes registered with the gateway, specifying types (worker / canvas / sub-gateway nodes). It distinguishes from sibling tools like openclaw_node_describe and openclaw_node_invoke by being a general list read-only operation.

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 listing nodes, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like openclaw_node_describe. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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