Skip to main content
Glama

freedom-mcp

by com.getfreedomos

configure_dashboard

Create or update a widget on your agent dashboard. Use this to display key metrics, charts, tables, or timelines that help the user understand your work at a glance. Each call creates or updates one widget.

[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
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dataNoData rows for chart/table/list/gantt widgets. Each item is an object. - chart: [{ label: "Jan", value: 100 }, ...] - table: [{ col1: "val", col2: "val" }, ...] - list: [{ label: "Item", status: "done", detail: "..." }, ...] - gantt: [{ label: "Task", start: "2024-01-01", end: "2024-01-15", status: "active" }, ...]
titleYesDisplay title for the widget (e.g., "Monthly Revenue", "Content Pipeline")
configNoWidget configuration. Shape depends on widget_type: - metric: { value, previous_value, format ("number"|"currency"|"percent"|"text"), trend_direction ("up"|"down"|"flat"), suffix } - chart: { chart_type ("bar"|"line"|"area"), x_axis, y_axis, color } - table: { columns: [{ key, label, align }], sortable, page_size } - list: { status_field, label_field, detail_field } - gantt: { start_field, end_field, label_field, status_field } - status: { status, status_color ("green"|"amber"|"red"|"blue"|"purple"|"slate"), detail, icon_emoji } - progress: { value (0-100), target_label, current_label, color (CSS class) } - kpi_row: { kpis: [{ label, value, trend ("up"|"down"|"flat"), format }] } - progress_ring: { value (0-100), label, color (CSS color) } - activity_status: (use data array with { name, frequency, status, next_run, last_outcome }) - canvas: { html (agent-authored layout HTML — narrative/self-expression, inert: no scripts/forms/controls, max 64KB), title (optional a11y label) }
positionNoDisplay order (0 = first, higher = later). Default: 0
companyIdYesFreedomOS company id to act within (you must be a member). Required for company-scoped tools.
widget_idNoUUID of existing widget to update. Omit to create a new widget.
is_visibleNoWhether the widget is visible on the dashboard. Default: true
widget_typeYesType of widget to create

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description must cover behavioral traits. It discloses the approval constraint and per-widget scope. However, it does not mention that updates overwrite existing widgets, potential failure modes, or whether the tool is idempotent. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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 extremely concise: one sentence for purpose, one for scope, and a bracket note for approval. No redundant information; front-loaded with key purpose.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given 8 parameters with nested config and no output schema, the description gives an overview of widget types and the approval requirement. However, it does not describe the return value or common error scenarios, leaving some gaps for a complex tool.

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 minimal parameter meaning beyond the schema; it provides context for widget types and approval tier but does not enhance understanding of individual parameters beyond what the schema already describes.

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 it creates or updates a widget on the agent dashboard, specifying the verb ('Create or update') and resource ('widget'). It lists supported widget types and distinguishes from sibling tools like list_dashboard_widgets and remove_dashboard_widget by focusing on mutate operations.

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 says to use it to display key metrics and notes that each call handles one widget. It mentions write-tier approval requirements. However, it does not explicitly state when to use alternatives or when not to use it, missing some decision guidance.

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

All freedom-mcp toolsInspect
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