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

openclaw-control-mcp

by smurfy92
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

openclaw_voicewake_set

Activate or deactivate voice wake and specify a custom wake word to trigger voice commands.

Instructions

Update the voice-wake configuration. Wraps voicewake.set.

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_voicewake_set"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
enabledNo
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.
wakeWordNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.7.0

TDQS

C2.6/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full burden. It only says 'Update... Wraps voicewake.set' without disclosing side effects, permissions, reversibility, or behavior of additional properties. The lack of detail makes it hard to assess safety.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is very brief (one sentence plus code reference), achieving conciseness but sacrificing content. It fails to earn its place by omitting critical details.

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 the lack of annotations, missing output schema, and 33% schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the configuration concept, parameter defaults, or relationship to other tools like openclaw_wake.

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 only 33% (only 'instance' has a description). The tool description does not explain the parameters further. The agent must infer the meanings of 'enabled' and 'wakeWord' from names alone, which is insufficient.

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 'Update the voice-wake configuration', specifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes from the sibling get tool. However, it could be more explicit about what fields are updated beyond the generic 'configuration'.

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 usage guidance is provided. The description does not mention when to use this tool vs. alternatives like openclaw_voicewake_get or openclaw_wake. No prerequisites or context are given.

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