openclaw-control-mcp

openclaw_plugin_approval_list

List pending and recent plugin approval requests for skills asking permission to perform actions.

Instructions

List pending and recent plugin approval requests (a skill / plugin asking for permission to do X). Wraps plugin.approval.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_plugin_approval_list"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`status`	No
`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

A3.7/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

The description explicitly states it is 'read-only' and wraps a specific API, which provides basic behavioral transparency. However, with no annotations present, it lacks details on authentication requirements, rate limits, or the exact scope of 'pending and recent'.

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 two sentences with no unnecessary words. It front-loads the purpose and adds a read-only clarification, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a simple list tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description provides adequate context: the resource type (plugin approvals), read-only nature, and internal API. It lacks details on return format or pagination, but the simplicity of the tool reduces the need.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 50% (only 'instance' is described). The description does not clarify the 'status' parameter, which has no schema description, and does not add value beyond what the schema already provides for 'instance'. The agent lacks guidance on how to use the status filter.

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 verb 'List' and the resource 'pending and recent plugin approval requests', with added context that it involves skills/plugins asking for permissions. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like openclaw_exec_approval_list through the explicit mention of 'plugin'.

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 viewing pending and recent approvals but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives (e.g., openclaw_plugin_approval_request for creating approvals). No exclusion criteria or scenarios are mentioned.

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

Deploy Server