OpenClaw 5.2 Migration Breaks Cron Jobs and MCP Plugin Calls

A user on r/openclaw reports that upgrading from OpenClaw 4.23 to 5.2 breaks both custom MCP tool plugins and cron jobs. The tools appear on the dashboard and can be toggled on/off, but the agent (Gemini Flash 3 preview) doesn't call them, consuming 5x more tokens and hallucinating responses instead.
MCP Plugin Registration Failure
In 4.23, custom MCP tool plugins worked reliably. After upgrading to 5.2, the plugins are visible in the dashboard and can be enabled/disabled, but the agent ignores them during execution. The user notes that the LLM ends up using 5x the tokens and returns hallucinated output.
Cron Job Registration Breaks with CLI
The user registered 10 cron jobs in 4.23 via a bash script that loops openclaw cron add with cron config info. In 5.2, the same script now throws device pairing issues on the CLI, even though the commands are run directly on the command line (not remotely). No further workaround is mentioned in the source.
Current Status
The user is asking if others have experienced similar issues migrating crons and custom plugins from older versions to 5.2. No solution or official response is reported in the source.
📖 Read the full source: r/openclaw
👀 See Also

Claude for Excel and PowerPoint Updates: Cross-Application Context and Skills Integration
Claude for Excel and PowerPoint now share conversation context across open files, with Skills available in both add-ins. The tools are accessible via Amazon Bedrock, Google Cloud's Vertex AI, and Microsoft Foundry for paid Mac and Windows users.

Claude Code v2.1.37 Released
Anthropic releases a new version of Claude Code with improvements and bug fixes.

Mistral Medium 3.5 128B Released: Dense Model with Configurable Reasoning and Vision
Mistral AI released Mistral Medium 3.5, a 128B dense model with 256k context, configurable reasoning effort, and vision capabilities, under a modified MIT license.

Claude vs GPT-4o: Same Double Pendulum Prompt, Different Coordinate Conventions
Claude and GPT-4o produce visually different double pendulum simulations because they interpret theta from opposite verticals — top vs bottom — while using the same renderer. The math is correct in both cases, but the mismatch reveals a subtle ambiguity in prompt interpretation.