Autopo

Plan settings

plan_settings

Turn model and media providers off or on for a company: disabled_providers is every provider to turn off (anthropic, openai, cursor, fal, higgsfield, elevenlabs), on your own key and Autopo’s alike; [] turns them all back on. You confirm in a dialog.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "disabled_providers": "<disabled_providers>"
    },
    "name": "plan_settings"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`company`	No	the company id (list_companies); not needed when you have one company, asked for otherwise
`disabled_providers`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedNov 6, 2026

removedInput schema / properties / overage_cap_cents

Removed value: -{
-  "maximum": 10000000,
-  "minimum": 0,
-  "type": "integer"
-}

addedInput schema / required

Added value: +[
+  "disabled_providers"
+]

AddedNov 5, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

The description adds real behaviour beyond the annotations: a confirmation dialog gates the change, both BYO-key and Autopo-hosted providers are affected, and an empty array restores everything. However it never says whether disabling affects billing, in-flight runs, or existing artifacts, and the full-replacement 'every provider to turn off' semantics sits in mild tension with idempotentHint=false.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

One dense paragraph with the core action front-loaded and the two critical semantics (exhaustive list, empty array resets) stated immediately. The semicolon-chained clauses are readable but border on run-on; nothing is wasted though.

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 two-parameter mutation with annotations and an output schema, the description covers the action, the list semantics, the reset case, and the confirmation step. Missing is any note on side effects of disabling a provider or what the confirmation dialog returns, but the essentials for correct invocation are present.

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?

With 50% schema coverage the description must carry weight, and it does: it explains that disabled_providers is an exhaustive list of six named providers and that `[]` re-enables all, which is precisely the non-obvious semantics an agent could get wrong. The company parameter is left to the schema, which already covers it.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description opens with a specific verb and resource plus its scope: 'Turn model and media providers off or on for a company.' That is enough to distinguish it from neighbours like change_plan and studio_settings, though it never names those siblings explicitly to route the agent.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is only implied: the agent can infer this is the tool for adjusting provider availability on a company. There is no statement of when to prefer it over change_plan or studio_settings, nor any prerequisite such as admin rights or an active plan.

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

All Autopo 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?