openclaw-control-mcp

openclaw_node_pair_verify

Verify a node pairing handshake to complete device pairing.

Instructions

Verify a node pairing handshake. Wraps node.pair.verify.

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_verify"
  }
}

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

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It only states the action, omitting whether the tool is read-only or destructive, what happens on success/failure, or any side effects. This is insufficient for a tool that likely modifies state.

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: two short sentences. It immediately states the purpose and references the underlying API. However, it could be more structured with headings or bullet points, but for a simple tool, this level is efficient.

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?

Despite the tool's simplicity (one optional param, no output schema), the description lacks essential context such as what a 'pairing handshake' is, what the verify step entails, and whether any prior steps are needed. It is insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's role.

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?

The single parameter 'instance' is already well-described in the input schema. The tool description adds no further semantics, so it does not increase understanding beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate given 100% schema 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 action ('Verify a node pairing handshake') and the underlying API method (`node.pair.verify`). This is a specific verb+resource that distinguishes it from sibling tools like `openclaw_node_pair_request` and `openclaw_node_pair_approve`.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites, such as having initiated a pair request, or indicate when verification is needed (e.g., after pairing request is made).

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

Deploy Server