PR #74030: [AI-assisted] feat(mcp): allow serve operator scope selection

• Repository: openclaw/openclaw
• Author: brokemac79
• State: open | merged: False
• Link: https://github.com/openclaw/openclaw/pull/74030

Description (problem / solution / changelog)

Summary

• Problem: openclaw mcp serve always requested the default operator scopes and could not be started with a narrower/explicit scope set.
• Why it matters: operators may need to run the MCP bridge with only the scopes required for their integration.
• What changed: added repeatable --scope validation/plumbing and passed configured operator scopes through to the gateway client.
• What did NOT change (scope boundary): default mcp serve scope behavior is unchanged when --scope is omitted.

AI-assisted: yes, built with Codex. I understand the code changes and verified the focused regressions locally.

Change Type (select all)

• Bug fix
• Feature
• Refactor required for the fix
• Docs
• Security hardening
• Chore/infra

Scope (select all touched areas)

• Gateway / orchestration
• Skills / tool execution
• Auth / tokens
• Memory / storage
• Integrations
• API / contracts
• UI / DX
• CI/CD / infra

Linked Issue/PR

• Closes #73864
• This PR fixes a bug or regression

Root Cause (if applicable)

• Root cause: MCP serve options did not expose operator scope selection, and the channel bridge always supplied the fixed default scope list.
• Missing detection / guardrail: no CLI/server tests covered explicit scope plumbing.
• Contributing context (if known): N/A

Regression Test Plan (if applicable)

• Coverage level that should have caught this:
  • Unit test
• Target test or file: src/cli/mcp-cli.test.ts, src/mcp/channel-server.test.ts
• Scenario the test should lock in: CLI accepts repeatable valid scopes, rejects unknown scopes, and the channel bridge passes configured scopes or defaults when omitted.
• Why this is the smallest reliable guardrail: it covers the CLI option and gateway-client construction boundaries without requiring a live gateway.
• Existing test that already covers this (if any): N/A
• If no new test is added, why not: N/A

User-visible / Behavior Changes

openclaw mcp serve now supports repeatable --scope <operator.scope> flags.

Diagram (if applicable)

N/A

Security Impact (required)

• New permissions/capabilities? No
• Secrets/tokens handling changed? No
• New/changed network calls? No
• Command/tool execution surface changed? No
• Data access scope changed? Yes
• If any Yes, explain risk + mitigation: Users can explicitly choose the operator scopes requested by the MCP bridge. Values are validated against known operator scopes, and omission preserves the previous default scope set.

Repro + Verification

Environment

• OS: Windows
• Runtime/container: local Node.js / pnpm workspace
• Model/provider: N/A
• Integration/channel (if any): MCP CLI/channel bridge
• Relevant config (redacted): N/A

Steps

1. Start openclaw mcp serve --scope operator.read --scope operator.approvals.
2. Confirm requested scopes are passed to the gateway client.
3. Start without --scope and confirm existing defaults are preserved.
4. Try an unknown scope and confirm the CLI rejects it.

Expected

• Explicit valid scopes are honored; invalid scopes fail fast; omitted scopes keep current defaults.

Actual

• Before this change, scope selection was not configurable.

Evidence

• Failing test/log before + passing after

Focused local validation:

node scripts/test-projects.mjs src/cli/mcp-cli.test.ts src/mcp/channel-server.test.ts
Test Files  2 passed (2)
Tests       14 passed (14)

Human Verification (required)

• Verified scenarios: focused CLI and channel bridge tests; git diff --check before commit.
• Edge cases checked: duplicate/repeatable scope collection, invalid scope rejection, default scope fallback.
• What you did not verify: live MCP bridge against a real gateway; full repo pnpm test / pnpm check.

Review Conversations

• I replied to or resolved every bot review conversation I addressed in this PR.
• I left unresolved only the conversations that still need reviewer or maintainer judgment.

Compatibility / Migration

• Backward compatible? Yes
• Config/env changes? No
• Migration needed? No
• If yes, exact upgrade steps: N/A

Risks and Mitigations

• Risk: users might request an insufficient scope set for a workflow.
  • Mitigation: default behavior is unchanged unless users opt into explicit scopes, and invalid scope names are rejected.

Changed files

• src/cli/mcp-cli.test.ts (modified, +37/-0)
• src/cli/mcp-cli.ts (modified, +27/-0)
• src/mcp/channel-bridge.ts (modified, +3/-1)
• src/mcp/channel-server.test.ts (modified, +77/-0)
• src/mcp/channel-server.ts (modified, +3/-0)