freedom-mcp

add_lead

Add a new lead to the Leads CRM (crm_leads) — the table the Leads tab, triage, and outreach all use. Idempotent on (company, email) when an email is given. Provide at least an email OR a name. The lead appears on the Leads tab and is auto-triaged.

Routing: CRM/sales → add a lead or prospect → use this

[write-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
`name`	No	Full name. Provide email or name.
`tags`	No	Tags for filtering (optional)
`email`	No	Lead email (unique within company). Provide email or name.
`notes`	No	Initial notes about the lead (optional)
`phone`	No	Phone number (optional)
`title`	No	Job title (optional)
`source`	No	Where the lead came from (e.g. "linkedin", "referral", "website"). Defaults to "manual".
`companyId`	Yes	FreedomOS company id to act within (you must be a member). Required for company-scoped tools.
`company_name`	No	Company they work for (optional)

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses idempotency, auto-triaging, and a write-tier approval process. It could be more specific about what 'auto-triaged' entails and if any other side effects occur, but generally it is transparent.

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?

The description is two short paragraphs with no unnecessary words. The first sentence immediately states the core purpose, and additional context is efficiently added. Every sentence adds value, and structure is well front-loaded.

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?

Given no output schema and moderate complexity (9 params, 1 required), the description covers key aspects: what the tool does, idempotency, required fields, and approval. It does not explain return value (e.g., lead ID), but overall it is complete enough for an agent to use 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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by stating 'Provide at least an email OR a name' (clarifying optionality) and noting idempotency on (company, email). This adds meaningful context for parameter combination.

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 clearly states the tool adds a lead to the Leads CRM (crm_leads), specifying the table and that it feeds the Leads tab, triage, and outreach. The verb 'add' and resource 'lead' are specific, and the context distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_lead.

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 good usage guidance: it mentions idempotency on (company, email), requires at least email or name, and includes a routing hint ('CRM/sales → add a lead or prospect → use this'). However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or contrast with alternatives like update_lead.

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?