freedom-mcp

adjust_shopify_inventory

Adjust a variant's available inventory by a delta (+/-) at its stocked location in the connected Shopify store. Operational stock management — use when receiving stock, correcting counts, or reserving units. (Boundary note: stock level is operational state, not storefront copy/price — see the connector design.)

Routing: Shopify: adjust variant stock by +/- delta at its location

[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
`delta`	Yes	Signed change to available quantity, e.g. 25 or -3
`reason`	No	Shopify inventory reason (default 'correction'; e.g. received, damaged, quality_control)
`companyId`	Yes	FreedomOS company id to act within (you must be a member). Required for company-scoped tools.
`variant_id`	Yes	Variant gid (gid://shopify/ProductVariant/...)

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that it modifies operational state (inventory) and explicitly contrasts with storefront copy/price. It also flags the sensitive-tier approval requirement. This adds meaningful context beyond a simple 'adjusts inventory'.

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 purpose and includes useful usage guidance and approval note. It is slightly repetitive (e.g., routing line) but each sentence adds value and does not waste words. Overall well-structured.

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 the tool has 4 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the necessary context: purpose, usage, boundary, and approval. It does not describe return values, but that is not required without an output schema. 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.

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no additional semantics beyond what the schema already provides; for example, delta is described in schema as 'Signed change to available quantity.' It does not enrich parameter understanding further, but it doesn't need to.

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 adjusts a variant's available inventory by a signed delta at its stocked location. It specifies the resource (variant) and action (adjust delta) and distinguishes itself from siblings by framing it as 'operational stock management' and noting it is not for storefront copy/price.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'use when receiving stock, correcting counts, or reserving units.' Also includes a boundary note to prevent misuse. It does not name alternative tools, but the clear context and boundary make it easy to decide.

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?