openclaw-control-mcp

openclaw_setup_list

List every persisted gateway instance (name + URL + whether token/password are set, never the values). Plus the active default instance and where secrets come from (env vars / .env vs store.json).

Instructions

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_setup_list"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.7.0Jul 28, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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 explicitly states that token/password values are never shown, only whether they are set, which is an important privacy trait. It also discloses the sources of secrets. It does not mention side effects, but as a list operation this is reasonable.

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 wasted words. The main action (listing instances) is front-loaded, and the key detail about never showing values is placed early. It is appropriately sized for a parameterless list operation.

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?

Given there are no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description adequately conveys what the tool returns: the list of instances, the active default, and the secrets source. It does not specify output format, but for a simple list this is likely sufficient. It covers the essential information an agent needs to understand the result.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the description does not need to explain any. Per the rubric, a tool with 0 parameters receives a baseline of 4, and the description adds no parameter-specific info beyond confirming the tool takes no arguments.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool lists every persisted gateway instance and specifies what is included (name, URL, token/password status, active default, secrets source). It is specific about the resource and verb, but it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like openclaw_setup_show or openclaw_setup_select_default.

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 conveys what the tool does but provides no guidance on when to use it versus alternatives. It is not misleading, but there is no mention of conditions or exclusions, leaving usage to be inferred from the name and description.

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

Deploy Server