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

openclaw-control-mcp

by smurfy92
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

openclaw_node_pair_request

Initiate pairing with a new node to register it with the OpenClaw gateway.

Instructions

Request pairing for a new node. Wraps node.pair.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_node_pair_request"
  }
}

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

B3/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description must reveal behavioral traits but only says 'Wraps node.pair.request.' It does not mention side effects, required permissions, or what happens after the request (e.g., awaiting approval).

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is very short (two sentences) but sacrifices completeness for brevity. It could be expanded to include essential details without being verbose.

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 the lack of output schema and only one optional parameter, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the purpose of the request, expected outcomes, prerequisites, or how to proceed after the request.

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 single 'instance' parameter, and the description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the description does not compensate for any gaps.

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 ('Request pairing') and the resource ('a new node'), and it distinguishes from siblings like openclaw_node_pair_approve and openclaw_node_pair_reject by specifying it's the initial request step.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like openclaw_node_pair_approve or other node management tools. The description only states what it does without context.

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