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

openclaw-control-mcp

by smurfy92
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

openclaw_node_pair_list

List pending and resolved node pairing requests on the OpenClaw gateway to manage device connections.

Instructions

List node pairing requests (pending and resolved). Wraps node.pair.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_pair_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

B3.2/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Without annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions read-only and wraps a command, but lacks details on authentication, rate limits, or effects. The minimal info is insufficient for a mutation-free tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is very concise with two short sentences. It is front-loaded and wastes no words, though it could benefit from slightly more context without being overly verbose.

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?

Given the low complexity (1 optional param, no output schema), the description covers the essential purpose but omits details like pagination, ordering, or response format. It is minimally adequate.

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 coverage is 100% for the only parameter 'instance', with a sufficient description. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond the schema, achieving 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?

The description clearly states the action 'List node pairing requests', specifies the resource, and distinguishes itself among siblings by mentioning 'pending and resolved' and wrapping 'node.pair.list'. It also notes read-only, which adds clarity.

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?

The description does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like openclaw_node_pair_request, openclaw_node_pair_verify, etc. It only says 'read-only', but no context on when to list versus other operations.

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