freedom-mcp

add_agent_activity

Add ONE activity to an agent's activity plan without regenerating the whole plan. Use to give an agent a new recurring or one-off deliverable. (To rebuild the entire plan, use recalibrate_agent_jd with regenerate_activities=true instead.)

[sensitive-tier — first use may require a manager's approval; a from-now-on approval makes future calls seamless, a just-once approval re-asks next time.]

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`activity`	Yes	The activity to add.
`agent_id`	No	UUID of the agent. Optional if agent_name is provided.
`companyId`	Yes	FreedomOS company id to act within (you must be a member). Required for company-scoped tools.
`agent_name`	No	Name of the agent (e.g. "Aiko"). Provide this or agent_id.
`linked_kr_id`	No	Required when activity is supplied flat. This work needs a goal. Pick the Key Result this loop moves.

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It honestly communicates that the tool does not regenerate the whole plan and includes an approval-tier warning about manager approval for first use. It does not describe return values or error cases, but the key side-effect and permission context are present.

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 succinct sentences plus a short parenthetical alternative and an approval note. The main action and scope are front-loaded, and every sentence contributes meaningful guidance without repetition or filler.

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 tool with a nested activity object and no output schema, the description conveys enough to start invocation: scope, alternative, and approval context. It could go further by hinting at success/error behavior, but the rich input schema covers the param details. The approval note is valuable contextual information not available elsewhere.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents all parameters. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond the schema; it only restates the intent of adding an activity. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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: 'Add ONE activity to an agent's activity plan without regenerating the whole plan.' It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like recalibrate_agent_jd, update_agent_activity, and remove_agent_activity by emphasizing adding a single new deliverable rather than rebuilding or modifying existing plans.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description explicitly tells when to use this tool: 'to give an agent a new recurring or one-off deliverable.' It also names the alternative for rebuilding the entire plan ('recalibrate_agent_jd with regenerate_activities=true instead'), giving the agent a clear routing decision.

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

All freedom-mcp tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

The tool set is heavily disambiguated by detailed routing descriptions, domain prefixes, and lifecycle verbs, so most tools have a clear intended purpose. However, at 297 tools there are still close pairs and overlapping decision surfaces (e.g., approval workflows, 'what should I work on' readers, multiple finance/ads readers) that require careful description reading to avoid misselection.

Naming Consistency4/5

Naming is predominantly consistent snake_case verb_noun with strong domain prefixes like shopify_, x_, posthog_, and list_/create_/update_ patterns. Minor inconsistencies exist, such as several collection-returning tools using get_ (get_team_members, get_icps, get_okrs) instead of list_, and some generate_ vs create_ vs draft_ verbs, but the pattern is still predictable overall.

Tool Count1/5

297 tools is an extreme outlier and far beyond a usable MCP tool surface. Even a large suite has no justification for this count in one server; the agent would struggle to select among hundreds of similarly descriptive tools, and the natural 3-15 tool range is exceeded by nearly 20x.

Completeness4/5

The individual domains represented — OKRs, CRM/leads, Shopify, content pipelines, ads, PostHog, team hiring, knowledge, finance, and session management — are covered remarkably well with full lifecycle patterns. Minor gaps exist, such as no full deal CRUD, no delete for several Google/Shopify artifacts, and some analytical surfaces being read-heavy, but most workflows can be completed without dead ends.

Resources

Need Help?