openclaw-control-mcp

openclaw_tools_catalog

List the agent-facing tools available to OpenClaw agents within a session. This read-only operation retrieves the catalog of tools that can be called.

Instructions

List the catalog of agent-facing tools available to OpenClaw agents (i.e. what main and other agents can call from inside a session). Wraps tools.catalog. 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_tools_catalog"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`agentId`	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

A3.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The description explicitly states the tool is read-only, which is the primary behavioral trait. Since no annotations are provided, this is adequate. It does not elaborate on other behavioral aspects like response format or side effects, but the read-only nature is clearly communicated.

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 concise with two sentences, no redundancy, and efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and nature.

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?

The description lacks details about the output format or content of the catalog. Since there is no output schema, the description should clarify what the return value contains. It is adequate for a simple list tool but could be more informative.

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 documented in the schema). The description does not mention any parameters or add meaning beyond the schema. For a tool with low schema coverage, the description should compensate but it does not, leaving the 'agentId' parameter underexplained.

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 the catalog of agent-facing tools, specifying it wraps `tools.catalog` and is read-only. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling `openclaw_tools_effective`, which might have a similar but distinct purpose.

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 explains the tool lists tools available to agents, implying its use for discovery. It does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it mention alternatives like `openclaw_tools_effective`.

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

Deploy Server