Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
openclaw-control-mcp

openclaw-control-mcp

by smurfy92
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

openclaw_tts_enable

Enable text-to-speech output to produce spoken responses from text. Optionally direct the call to an OpenClaw instance.

Instructions

Enable text-to-speech output. Wraps tts.enable.

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_tts_enable"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
instanceNoOptional 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.

  1. First observedv0.7.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Without annotations, the description carries the burden. It only says 'Wraps tts.enable', lacking details on state changes, side effects, idempotency, or output. An enable tool should disclose if it's safe to call multiple times or requires configuration.

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?

Very concise: two short sentences with no redundancy. Could be slightly improved by front-loading the purpose, but it's efficient and clear.

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?

For a simple toggle tool with no required params and no output schema, the description is barely adequate. It lacks information on return values, errors, or state prerequisites. More context would help, but it's not severely incomplete.

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 coverage is 100% for the single optional parameter. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, which already explains instance routing. 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 the tool enables text-to-speech output, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling TTS tools like openclaw_tts_disable (disable) and openclaw_tts_status (status check).

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance on when to use this tool, e.g., prerequisites (provider set?), or when not to use it (already enabled). No mention of alternatives or context relative to sibling TTS tools.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools