openclaw-control-mcp

openclaw_set_heartbeats

Enable or disable heartbeat emission from the gateway and adjust the interval. Configure cadence parameters to control heartbeat frequency.

Instructions

Toggle / configure heartbeat emission from the gateway. Wraps set-heartbeats. Pass enabled and any cadence params.

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_set_heartbeats"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`enabled`	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.
`intervalMs`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.7.0Jul 28, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Toggle / configure heartbeat emission' without detailing side effects, prerequisites, or whether changes are reversible, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent.

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 extremely concise, using two sentences to convey purpose and parameter guidance with no extraneous text. Every sentence is informative.

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 no output schema and low parameter coverage, the description lacks important context such as return values, success/failure behavior, and prerequisites, making it incomplete for an agent to use reliably.

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 low (33%), and the description merely names 'enabled' and 'cadence params' without adding meaning beyond what the schema property names already convey. The 'instance' parameter is not mentioned despite having a schema description.

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 function with a specific verb ('Toggle / configure') and resource ('heartbeat emission from the gateway'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like openclaw_last_heartbeat (read-only) and other configuration tools.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description provides clear usage context by noting parameters to pass ('enabled' and cadence params), but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it.

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

Deploy Server