openclaw - 💡(How to fix) Fix WebUI model picker sends model without provider prefix, causing model not allowed in enterprise LiteLLM setups [4 comments, 2 participants]

Official PRs (…)
ON THIS PAGE

Recommended Tools

×6

Utilities matched from this issue’s tags and category — try them while you read without losing context.

GitHub issue graph ai analysis

Paste a GitHub issue URL. We fetch that issue, discover linked issues from bodies/comments/timeline, collect linked pull requests, and produce a structured English report.

The report is written in English Markdown for sharing and archival.

Helpful · Quick feedback

Loading…
GitHub stats
openclaw/openclaw#62393Fetched 2026-04-08 03:04:57
View on GitHub
Comments
4
Participants
2
Timeline
7
Reactions
0
Timeline (top)
commented ×4cross-referenced ×1mentioned ×1subscribed ×1

Fix Action

Fix / Workaround

Alternative Workaround

Code Example

models.providers.litellm.models:
  - bailian/glm-5      # External provider A
  - qianfan/glm-5     # External provider B
  - bailian/qwen3.5-plus
RAW_BUFFERClick to expand / collapse

Problem

When using OpenClaw with an enterprise LiteLLM proxy that manages multiple external LLM providers (e.g., bailian, qianfan), users cannot persist a default model selection via WebUI.

Scenario

models.providers.litellm.models:
  - bailian/glm-5      # External provider A
  - qianfan/glm-5     # External provider B
  - bailian/qwen3.5-plus

Expected: User selects bailian/glm-5 in WebUI → sends litellm/bailian/glm-5 to backend → matches agents.defaults.models → allowed

Actual: User selects bailian/glm-5 in WebUI → sends bailian/glm-5 (without litellm/ prefix) → does NOT match agents.defaults.models (which contains litellm/bailian/glm-5) → rejected as "model not allowed"

Why This Matters for Enterprise

Enterprise LiteLLM deployments typically:

  1. Use LiteLLM as a unified gateway with centralized API key management
  2. Want to expose real provider/model names to end users for transparency
  3. Need to control which models users can access via agents.defaults.models
  4. Must NOT expose provider API keys directly to end users

The current behavior breaks the enterprise pattern where:

  • Provider prefix (litellm/) = internal routing layer
  • Model suffix (bailian/glm-5) = what users see and select

Expected Behavior

The WebUI model picker should send the full model key (e.g., litellm/bailian/glm-5) that matches agents.defaults.models, OR the backend should accept both provider/model and full-prefix/provider/model formats.

Alternative Workaround

If agents.defaults.models is left empty, WebUI shows all models, but users cannot persist any default model selection.

extent analysis

TL;DR

Modify the WebUI to send the full model key (e.g., litellm/bailian/glm-5) or update the backend to accept both provider/model and full-prefix/provider/model formats.

Guidance

  • Verify that the agents.defaults.models configuration contains the full model keys with the litellm/ prefix.
  • Update the WebUI model picker to include the litellm/ prefix when sending the selected model to the backend.
  • Consider modifying the backend to accept both provider/model and full-prefix/provider/model formats for model selection.
  • Test the updated configuration to ensure that users can persist their default model selection via the WebUI.

Example

No code snippet is provided as the issue does not contain specific code references.

Notes

The current behavior may be due to a mismatch between the model keys used in the WebUI and the agents.defaults.models configuration. Resolving this issue requires ensuring that the model keys used in both the WebUI and the backend configuration are consistent.

Recommendation

Apply a workaround by modifying the WebUI to send the full model key or updating the backend to accept both formats, as upgrading to a fixed version is not mentioned in the issue. This approach allows for a more flexible and compatible solution for enterprise LiteLLM deployments.

Vote matrix · Quick signals

Works
Did the solution work? Tap to confirm.
Easy Fix
Was it a quick fix?
Time Saver
Did it save you time?
Blocking
Was it severely blocking?
Common Issue
Are others likely hitting this too?
Flaky / Intermittent
Is it intermittent?
Verified / Reproducible
Can you reproduce it reliably?
Loading…

Still need to ship something?

×6

Another batch ranked right after the header list — different links, same matching logic.

Back to top recommendations

TRENDING