openclaw-control-mcp

openclaw_plugin_approval_resolve

Resolve pending plugin approvals by approving or rejecting requests to control plugin access.

Instructions

Resolve a pending plugin approval (approve / reject). Wraps plugin.approval.resolve. Mutates.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "openclaw_plugin_approval_resolve"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes	Plugin approval request id
`approved`	No
`decision`	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

B3.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

The description only mentions 'Mutates' without detailing side effects, permissions, or any behavioral traits. Since no annotations are provided, the description should disclose what happens on approval/rejection, but it does not.

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?

Two sentences with no wasted words. Efficiently conveys the action and mutability.

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?

For a mutation tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain return values, prerequisites, or fully clarify the role of all parameters.

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 50%, with only id and instance described. The description adds no additional meaning beyond stating approve/reject, which partially clarifies the decision enum but not the approved boolean. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 it resolves a pending plugin approval (approve/reject), which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like openclaw_plugin_approval_list and openclaw_plugin_approval_request.

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 says 'Resolve a pending plugin approval (approve / reject)' but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like list or request. It implies usage after a pending approval exists but lacks clear when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance.

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

Deploy Server