[shanselman]

Summary

• Add winnode --list-tools for live MCP tools/list discovery
• Strengthen WinNode CLI drift coverage against actual capability command lists
• Refresh MCP mode docs and the bundled skill reference for local bearer-token auth

Validation

• dotnet test .\tests\OpenClaw.WinNode.Cli.Tests\OpenClaw.WinNode.Cli.Tests.csproj
• .\build.ps1
• dotnet test .\tests\OpenClaw.Shared.Tests\OpenClaw.Shared.Tests.csproj
• dotnet test .\tests\OpenClaw.Tray.Tests\OpenClaw.Tray.Tests.csproj

[clawsweeper]

Codex review: needs real behavior proof before merge.

Latest ClawSweeper review: 2026-05-23 05:05 UTC / May 23, 2026, 1:05 AM ET.

Workflow note: Future ClawSweeper reviews update this same comment in place.

How this review workflow works

• ClawSweeper keeps one durable marker-backed review comment per issue or PR.
• Re-runs edit this comment so the latest verdict, findings, and automation markers stay together instead of adding duplicate bot comments.
• A fresh review can be triggered by eligible @clawsweeper re-review comments, exact-item GitHub events, scheduled/background review runs, or manual workflow dispatch.
• PR/issue authors and users with repository write access can comment @clawsweeper re-review or @clawsweeper re-run on an open PR or issue to request a fresh review only.
• Maintainers can also comment @clawsweeper review to request a fresh review only.
• Fresh-review commands do not start repair, autofix, rebase, CI repair, or automerge.
• Maintainer-only repair and merge flows require explicit commands such as @clawsweeper autofix, @clawsweeper automerge, @clawsweeper fix ci, or @clawsweeper address review.
• Maintainers can comment @clawsweeper explain to ask for more context, or @clawsweeper stop to stop active automation.

Summary
This PR adds a winnode --list-tools mode that sends MCP tools/list, expands CLI/drift tests, and updates MCP/skill docs for bearer-token usage.

Reproducibility: not applicable. as a feature PR. Source review shows current main lacks --list-tools, while existing MCP code already has a live tools/list surface that the PR can call.

PR rating
Overall: 🧂 unranked krab
Proof: 🧂 unranked krab
Patch quality: 🐚 platinum hermit
Summary: The patch looks focused from source review, but missing live behavior proof keeps the PR below merge-ready quality.

Rank-up moves:

• Add redacted terminal output, logs, or a terminal screenshot showing winnode --list-tools returning a real MCP tools/list result from the Windows tray.
• Keep private details redacted, including bearer tokens, IPs, phone numbers, API keys, and non-public endpoints.

What the crustacean ranks mean

• 🦀 challenger crab: rare, exceptional readiness with strong proof, clean implementation, and convincing validation.
• 🦞 diamond lobster: very strong readiness with only minor maintainer review expected.
• 🐚 platinum hermit: good normal PR, likely mergeable with ordinary maintainer review.
• 🦐 gold shrimp: useful signal, but proof or patch confidence is still limited.
• 🦪 silver shellfish: thin signal; proof, validation, or implementation needs work.
• 🧂 unranked krab: not merge-ready because proof is missing/unusable or there are serious correctness or safety concerns.
• 🌊 off-meta tidepool: rating does not apply to this item.

Shiny media proof means a screenshot, video, or linked artifact directly shows the changed behavior. Runtime, network, CSP, and security claims still need visible diagnostics.

Real behavior proof
Needs real behavior proof before merge: The PR needs redacted live proof, such as terminal output or a terminal screenshot showing winnode --list-tools against a real tray MCP server; updating the PR body should trigger re-review, or a maintainer can comment @clawsweeper re-review. After adding proof, update the PR body; ClawSweeper should re-review automatically. If it does not, the PR author or someone with repository write access can comment @clawsweeper re-review.

Risk before merge

• No after-fix real behavior proof is present; validation command names alone do not show winnode --list-tools working against a real Windows tray MCP server with bearer-token auth.
• This review did not run build or tests because the requested cleanup review required a read-only checkout with no generated artifacts.

Maintainer options:

1. Decide the mitigation before merge
   Merge the CLI mode if maintainers accept the new flag after real Windows tray proof shows it lists live MCP tools with bearer-token auth and CI/validation passes.
2. Pause or close
   Do not merge this PR until maintainers decide whether the risk is worth taking.

Next step before merge
Human review should wait for contributor-supplied live CLI/MCP proof; automation cannot produce evidence from the contributor's Windows tray setup.

Security
Cleared: The diff adds a CLI request mode and docs/tests while continuing to use the existing bearer-token resolution and off-loopback safeguards.

Review details

Best possible solution:

Merge the CLI mode if maintainers accept the new flag after real Windows tray proof shows it lists live MCP tools with bearer-token auth and CI/validation passes.

Do we have a high-confidence way to reproduce the issue?

Not applicable as a feature PR. Source review shows current main lacks --list-tools, while existing MCP code already has a live tools/list surface that the PR can call.

Is this the best way to solve the issue?

Yes, the implementation direction is narrow: it reuses the existing CLI endpoint/token path and existing MCP tools/list method rather than adding a parallel discovery mechanism.

Label changes:

• add P3: The PR is a low-risk CLI ergonomics and documentation improvement with focused tests, not an urgent user-impacting regression.
• add rating: 🧂 unranked krab: Current PR rating is 🧂 unranked krab because proof is 🧂 unranked krab, patch quality is 🐚 platinum hermit, and The patch looks focused from source review, but missing live behavior proof keeps the PR below merge-ready quality.
• add status: 📣 needs proof: The PR needs real behavior proof before ClawSweeper can clear the contributor ask. Needs real behavior proof before merge: The PR needs redacted live proof, such as terminal output or a terminal screenshot showing winnode --list-tools against a real tray MCP server; updating the PR body should trigger re-review, or a maintainer can comment @clawsweeper re-review. After adding proof, update the PR body; ClawSweeper should re-review automatically. If it does not, the PR author or someone with repository write access can comment @clawsweeper re-review.

Label justifications:

• P3: The PR is a low-risk CLI ergonomics and documentation improvement with focused tests, not an urgent user-impacting regression.
• rating: 🧂 unranked krab: Current PR rating is 🧂 unranked krab because proof is 🧂 unranked krab, patch quality is 🐚 platinum hermit, and The patch looks focused from source review, but missing live behavior proof keeps the PR below merge-ready quality.
• status: 📣 needs proof: The PR needs real behavior proof before ClawSweeper can clear the contributor ask. Needs real behavior proof before merge: The PR needs redacted live proof, such as terminal output or a terminal screenshot showing winnode --list-tools against a real tray MCP server; updating the PR body should trigger re-review, or a maintainer can comment @clawsweeper re-review. After adding proof, update the PR body; ClawSweeper should re-review automatically. If it does not, the PR author or someone with repository write access can comment @clawsweeper re-review.

What I checked:

• Current CLI lacks list mode: Current main requires --command before any MCP request, so the new flag is a real CLI feature rather than an already-implemented path. (src/OpenClaw.WinNode.Cli/Program.cs:71, b41fe8243cc3)
• Existing MCP live list surface: Current main already exposes tools/list through McpToolBridge, and HandleToolsList reads the provided capability list each call. (src/OpenClaw.Shared/Mcp/McpToolBridge.cs:93, b41fe8243cc3)
• Tray supplies live capabilities to MCP: NodeService.StartMcpServer builds the bridge from a locked live snapshot of registered capabilities plus MCP-only capabilities, matching the PR's live discovery goal. (src/OpenClaw.Tray.WinUI/Services/NodeService.cs:586, b41fe8243cc3)
• PR diff adds focused CLI dispatch: The patch adds WinNodeOptions.ListTools, rejects combining it with --command, and routes list mode to a new BuildToolsListBody() JSON-RPC envelope. (src/OpenClaw.WinNode.Cli/Program.cs:69, 33ca80a8a10a)
• PR test coverage is focused: The patch adds unit coverage for the tools/list body, argument parsing, usage text, RunAsync list-mode behavior, and capability-description drift against concrete capability command lists. (tests/OpenClaw.WinNode.Cli.Tests/RunAsyncTests.cs:86, 33ca80a8a10a)
• Real behavior proof missing: The PR body lists validation commands, but it does not include terminal output, logs, a screenshot, recording, or other after-fix proof showing winnode --list-tools against a real tray MCP server. (33ca80a8a10a)

Likely related people:

• shanselman: Current-main blame shows Scott Hanselman introduced the CLI runner and MCP bridge surfaces this PR extends, and later adjusted MCP capability gating. (role: recent area contributor; confidence: high; commits: 0b5260bf9b4f, 0b31e210a421, 6711591b5c14; files: src/OpenClaw.WinNode.Cli/Program.cs, src/OpenClaw.Shared/Mcp/McpToolBridge.cs, src/OpenClaw.Tray.WinUI/Services/NodeService.cs)
• Ranjesh: Recent current-main history added MCP runtime toggling and AppCapability MCP-only separation, which affects the live capability set returned by tools/list. (role: recent adjacent contributor; confidence: medium; commits: d7d7661ac28c; files: src/OpenClaw.Tray.WinUI/Services/NodeService.cs, src/OpenClaw.Tray.WinUI/App.xaml.cs)

Codex review notes: model gpt-5.5, reasoning high; reviewed against b41fe8243cc3.

[clawsweeper]

ClawSweeper PR egg

🎁 Pass real behavior proof to wake the egg and unlock a hatchable treat.

Where did the egg go?

• The egg game starts only after the PR passes the real-behavior proof check.
• Before that, no creature or rarity is rolled. The treat waits for real proof.
• This is still just collectible flavor: proof affects review readiness, not creature quality.