Nebelus

Create governance policy

create_governance_policy

Create a DRAFT governance policy in the org (activate separately with activate_governance_policy). configuration is policy-type-specific; its masked_fields/pii_entities are validated against the PII registry.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	Yes	Human-readable policy name.
`severity`	No	Policy severity.
`description`	No	What the policy enforces.
`policy_type`	Yes	The kind of policy.
`configuration`	No	Policy-type-specific settings (e.g. masked_fields / pii_entities for data_privacy).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed7 schema fields changedSep 14, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / configuration

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Policy-type-specific settings (e.g. masked_fields / pii_entities for data_privacy).",
+  "type": "object"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / description

Added value: +{
+  "description": "What the policy enforces.",
+  "type": "string"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / name / description
```
Added value: +"Human-readable policy name."
```
addedInput schema / properties / policy_type / description
```
Added value: +"The kind of policy."
```

addedInput schema / properties / policy_type / enum

Added value: +[
+  "content_filter",
+  "data_privacy",
+  "access_control",
+  "output_validation",
+  "rate_limiting",
+  "custom"
+]

addedInput schema / properties / severity

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Policy severity.",
+  "enum": [
+    "low",
+    "medium",
+    "high",
+    "critical"
+  ],
+  "type": "string"
+}

changedInput schema / required

Previous value: -[
-  "name"
-]New value: +[
+  "name",
+  "policy_type"
+]

First observedSep 14, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only convey readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false; the description adds valuable unstated behavior: the policy is created in draft form and not effective until activated, and configuration fields are validated against the PII registry. This meaningfully affects the caller's expectations of side effects and failure modes.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Two sentences that each carry important information: the draft/activation lifecycle is front-loaded, and the validation caveat is brief but material. There is no filler or redundant restatement of the schema.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a create-style tool with 5 parameters, a nested configuration object, no output schema, and sparse annotations, the description covers the key runtime behaviors: draft state, separate activation, and registry validation. The only minor gap is that it doesn't hint at the return value on success, which is customary for creation tools.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description adds genuine meaning by explaining that `configuration` is policy-type-specific and that masked_fields/pii_entities are registration against the PII registry. This goes beyond the schema's generic 'settings' wording and helps correctly construct nested values.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states a specific verb and resource ('Create a DRAFT governance policy in the org') and highlights the draft/active split, which distinguishes it from the sibling tool activate_governance_policy. It also scopes the object to org-level policy creation, removing ambiguity left by the generic name.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly instructs that activation must be done separately with activate_governance_policy, providing clear lifecycle guidance on when this tool is appropriate. It does not explicitly exclude other policy-related siblings like set_governance_policies, but it makes the create-then-activate workflow unambiguous.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Nebelus tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?