SAGOT

policies_update

SAGOT policies.update. Uses the same authorization and validation as website, API and CLI.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`policy`	Yes
`revision`	Yes
`workspaceId`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed6 schema fields changedOct 18, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / policy / properties / monthlySpendLimitCentavos / anyOf

Added value: +[
+  {
+    "maximum": 10000000,
+    "minimum": 0,
+    "type": "integer"
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "null"
+  }
+]

changedInput schema / properties / policy / properties / monthlySpendLimitCentavos / default
```
Previous value: -100000New value: +null
```

changedInput schema / properties / policy / properties / monthlySpendLimitCentavos / description

Previous value: -"Most that calls on SAGOT numbers may cost from the prepaid balance per calendar month (UTC), in centavos (phase 42). A call whose maximum cost would pass it is refused."New value: +"Optional cap on what calls on SAGOT numbers may cost per calendar month (UTC), in centavos (phase 42). null (default) = no cap: the prepaid balance is the limit. When set, a call whose maximum cost would pass it is refused."

removedInput schema / properties / policy / properties / monthlySpendLimitCentavos / maximum
```
Removed value: -10000000
```
removedInput schema / properties / policy / properties / monthlySpendLimitCentavos / minimum
```
Removed value: -0
```
removedInput schema / properties / policy / properties / monthlySpendLimitCentavos / type
```
Removed value: -"integer"
```

Changed1 schema field changedOct 18, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / policy / properties / monthlySpendLimitCentavos

Added value: +{
+  "default": 100000,
+  "description": "Most that calls on SAGOT numbers may cost from the prepaid balance per calendar month (UTC), in centavos (phase 42). A call whose maximum cost would pass it is refused.",
+  "maximum": 10000000,
+  "minimum": 0,
+  "type": "integer"
+}

Changed1 schema field changedOct 17, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / policy / properties / assistantCallApproval

Added value: +{
+  "default": true,
+  "description": "Calls that a connected AI assistant (OAuth, phase 41) asks for wait until a person approves them on the website. Admins can turn this off; assistants never can.",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}

First observedOct 17, 2026

TDQS

D1.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it mostly fails. The only real disclosure is that authorization and validation match the website/API/CLI, which is a mild hint about the auth model. It says nothing about the fact that this is a full replace of the policy object, what a stale revision does, whether changes are reversible, or what a conflict returns.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

It is short, front-loaded, and free of filler, which is a genuine virtue. But the second sentence is thin compensation for the total absence of functional detail, so terseness here reads more as under-specification than discipline.

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

Completeness1/5

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

For a mutation tool with a nested policy object, a required revision, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. An agent cannot know what the call mutates, how concurrency is handled, or what a failed update looks like.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Top-level schema description coverage is 0%: workspaceId, revision, and policy are undocumented, and the description adds nothing. Critically, the revision parameter strongly implies optimistic concurrency control, and the description never explains it, leaving the agent to guess at the most error-prone part of the call.

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

Purpose2/5

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

The description is essentially the tool name restated ('SAGOT policies.update') plus a note about authorization parity. It never says what is being updated (call policies for a workspace) or what the operation actually changes, so an agent cannot distinguish it meaningfully from siblings like policies_get or workspaces_update.

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

Usage Guidelines1/5

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

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no reference to the obvious alternative policies_get. The sentence about authorization and validation parity with website/API/CLI gives no routing information at all.

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

All SAGOT 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?