Reinforcing Safeguards in the Age of AI Agents: Openness vs. Control for SaaS Platforms

Introduction

SaaS companies are entering a new chapter. What used to be treated as a technical checklist, platform safeguards and API governance, is now front and center in boardroom discussions. The conversation is no longer simply about connectivity. It’s about strategy: how open should a platform be, and how much control should it keep?

This debate became impossible to ignore in June 2025, when Slack (owned by Salesforce) rolled out new restrictions on its APIs. The move sparked widespread debate in the SaaS community. Meanwhile, other platforms such as Wix and FuseBase chose to adopt the Model Context Protocol (MCP) to support agentic AI innovation.

So, what’s the right approach? In a world where AI agents are quickly becoming part of everyday workflows, every SaaS executive now faces the same dilemma: what kind of platform openness will accelerate innovation without eroding safeguards, and what API strategy will sustain growth and trust?

The Strategic Tension: Openness vs. Control

The Case for Control

• Stronger privacy and compliance guarantees.
• Easier enforcement of governance and data protection.
• Clear opportunities to monetize premium APIs or AI-native features.
• Visibility into customer behavior and needs. Platforms want insight into how their products are used, yet the usage data ultimately belongs to the customer.
  

The Case for Openness

• A thriving ecosystem of developers and partners.
• Faster innovation and new agentic use cases.
• Greater trust through transparency and interoperability.

Most SaaS leaders feel this pull in both directions. Too much control risks alienating partners and slowing innovation. Too much openness can raise compliance and security risks, and sometimes erode monetization opportunities. 

Slack’s Bold Move: Restricting API Access

In June 2025, Slack made sweeping changes to its API Terms of Service:

• Third-party apps were blocked from storing, indexing, or bulk-exporting Slack messages.
• Non-Marketplace apps faced new limits - just one request per minute to fetch conversations, capped at 15 messages per request.

The update was framed as a privacy-first policy. But in practice, it significantly limited external AI systems from ingesting Slack data at scale. For agentic AI startups that depend on rich historical context, it was seen as a direct blow.

For enterprises, the change created compliance challenges. For developers, it narrowed room for innovation. And for Salesforce, it gave an advantage to its own AI products closely tied to Slack. The message was unmistakable: control first, openness second.

But there’s a risk in this approach. Over time, customers frustrated by restrictions may turn to other tools, reducing stickiness and even driving churn. This is where SaaS API strategy and customer experience intersect, and where decisions on governance ripple directly into growth.

Counter-Examples: SaaS Platforms Choosing Openness

Not every SaaS provider is choosing a closed path. Several have leaned into MCP, an open standard that lets AI agents interact with data and tools.

Wix has built MCP support directly into its platform, allowing AI agents to connect with live site data. That means content can be updated, analytics pulled, and even design tweaks made, without forcing customers into proprietary, one-way integrations. For Wix, it’s a deliberate bet that extensibility fuels long-term growth.

FuseBase, a collaboration and client portal SaaS, was among the first to integrate MCP. With it, the platform enables agent-native connectivity and secure automation across systems. Instead of fearing “AI lock-in,” FuseBase positions openness as differentiation, proving that an API-centric SaaS can balance innovation with governance.

These examples show that openness doesn’t have to be a weakness. It can be a strategic play. Rather than battling foundation model providers, SaaS platforms can thrive as the trusted surface where agents act.

Still, openness comes with its own risks. MCP is new, and early adopters are finding its edges. In June 2025, Asana disclosed an MCP-related flaw that briefly exposed project data across different organizations. The issue was resolved quickly, but it was a wake-up call: even the most forward-looking SaaS API platforms must pair openness with rigorous governance, strong access controls, and constant monitoring.

While MCP is promising as an interoperability standard, it comes with limitations. First, MCP doesn’t solve the question of control. It may standardize how APIs are exposed, but the client’s AI agent ultimately decides how that access is used. The vendor enables connectivity, yet the decision-making shifts outside their platform.

Second, MCP was never designed as a security framework. It opens APIs to agentic access, but it doesn’t address authentication, authorization, or misuse on its own. This means vendors still need to layer safeguards around it. For SaaS leaders, MCP should be seen as an enabler of openness, not as a substitute for governance.

Lessons for SaaS Leaders

1. Openness is Not an On/Off Switch

API strategy isn’t binary. Many successful SaaS providers use a tiered approach:

• Open APIs for low-risk, high-value use cases.
• Controlled APIs for sensitive or monetizable functions.
• Standards like MCP to allow agent access.
  

2. Governance Can Be a Differentiator

API governance used to sound like red tape. Today, it’s an asset. Platforms that explain their policies clearly, protect customer data, and still encourage developer creativity will earn long-term trust.

3. Agents Need Guardrails, Not Walls

AI agents are not going away. The winning SaaS platforms won’t block them; they’ll design guardrails like authentication, monitoring, and explainability. Standards like MCP provide a way for agents to communicate with APIs, but they don’t provide guardrails or protect the platform. The logic and decisions remain with the agent, the one the customer wrote, not with the vendor.

4. Position Yourself as the Orchestrator

Rather than fearing OpenAI or foundation model providers, SaaS platform leaders should ask: what role can we play in the agentic ecosystem? Platforms that orchestrate, providing context, governance, and extensibility, can stay relevant while enabling innovation.

5. Adopt Embedded Extensibility

A growing number of SaaS platforms are introducing embedded AI extensibility: the ability for customers, partners, or even internal teams to build extensions directly inside the platform. Unlike traditional APIs that are either fully open or tightly closed, embedded extensibility provides a balance. Customers gain flexibility to tailor the platform, while vendors maintain oversight and compliance.

For leaders, this approach dissolves the false trade-off between openness and control. It allows SaaS companies to empower innovation, support agentic AI scenarios, and deliver customer-specific solutions, all while keeping governance intact.

Conclusion

The debate over platform openness vs. control is no longer theoretical. Slack’s restrictions underline the power of control, but also its costs. Wix and FuseBase show that openness, if managed well, can attract customers and partners. And Asana’s incident reminds us that governance must evolve in parallel with innovation.

For SaaS leaders, the smartest path forward isn’t choosing one side. It’s designing strategies that balance both:

• Controlled where the risks are highest.
• Open where innovation thrives.
• Governed in ways that earn trust.

In today’s B2B platform landscape, APIs aren’t just technical pipes. APIs are strategic levers, and the way SaaS platforms design their platform openness strategies and API governance will help decide which companies lead in the age of AI agents.