Scopeweb

set_budget

Idempotent

Records a monthly or yearly spending ceiling, in cents, for one of the user's projects by project_id. For when the user states a spending limit. It never authorises a purchase and cannot spend money. The response includes the project's current carry and headroom. Headroom is flagged partial when a domain's renewal price is unknown: an unknown renewal is counted as unknown, never as zero, so headroom is then an upper bound. PRICES ARE IDENTICAL FOR ALL BUYERS REGARDLESS OF BUDGET. A budget changes what is recommended and how results are ordered; it never changes what anything costs.

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": {
      "project_id": "<project_id>",
      "period": "<period>",
      "amount_cents": "<amount_cents>"
    },
    "name": "set_budget"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`period`	Yes
`project_id`	Yes
`amount_cents`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedSep 14, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses important behavior: it never authorises a purchase, cannot spend money, returns current carry and headroom, flags headroom as partial when renewal price is unknown, treats unknown renewal as unknown rather than zero, and explains that budgets affect recommendations and ordering but never prices. These details materially help the agent predict side effects and interpret results.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the core action and then adds relevant behavioral caveats. It is somewhat verbose with repeated no-spend emphasis and all-caps pricing text, but each major sentence contributes useful context.

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

Completeness5/5

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

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by explaining that the response includes current carry and headroom, including the partial-headroom case when a renewal price is unknown. Combined with the annotations and parameter explanations, the definition gives an agent enough context to set a budget correctly.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It does define the key semantics: amount_cents is a spending ceiling in cents, period is monthly or yearly, and project_id identifies the project. It does not add format details for project_id or numeric constraints for amount_cents, but the essential meaning is covered.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it records a monthly or yearly spending ceiling in cents for a user's project by project_id. It also sharply distinguishes this from purchasing by saying it never authorises a purchase and cannot spend money. An agent can understand exactly what the tool does without opening the schema.

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 provides a clear trigger: 'For when the user states a spending limit.' It also clarifies that the tool does not spend or authorise purchases, which helps avoid misuse. However, it does not name sibling alternatives or explicitly state when not to use this tool.

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

All Scopeweb 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?