openclaw-control-mcp

openclaw_secrets_resolve

Resolve a command-scoped secret to debug missing or incorrect values. Returns secret material for a specified command.

Instructions

Resolve a command-scoped secret. Wraps secrets.resolve. Wire format (verified live against gateway 2026.4.12+): { commandName: string } — the gateway secrets subsystem is COMMAND-scoped, not arbitrary key/value. SENSITIVE — returns secret material; only use for debugging missing/wrong-values issues. For arbitrary API keys consumed by skills, use openclaw_secrets_set (which writes to the config tree, not the command-scoped secret store).

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": {
      "commandName": "<commandName>"
    },
    "name": "openclaw_secrets_resolve"
  }
}

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.
`commandName`	Yes	Command name whose secret to resolve.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.7.0Jul 28, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It warns that this is 'SENSITIVE — returns secret material,' explains the command-scoped nature and wire format. It does not detail auth requirements or error behavior, but the sensitivity warning and scope explanation add significant context.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose. Each sentence adds distinct value: purpose, wire format, sensitivity warning, usage advice. It is not overly verbose, though could be slightly trimmed without losing meaning.

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 no output schema, the description does not describe the return value format (e.g., secret string or object) or error cases. It mentions 'returns secret material' but is vague. For a sensitive tool, more completeness on return and error handling would be beneficial.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100% with both parameters described. The description adds value by explaining the wire format and command-scoped semantics, and clarifies the fallback behavior for 'instance'. This goes beyond the schema descriptions.

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 tool's purpose: 'Resolve a command-scoped secret.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from sibling tool 'openclaw_secrets_set' by explaining the difference in scoping (command-scoped vs config tree).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicit guidance: 'Only use for debugging missing/wrong-values issues.' Provides alternative: 'For arbitrary API keys consumed by skills, use openclaw_secrets_set.' This clearly tells the agent when to use and when not to use this tool.

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

Deploy Server