freedom-mcp

confirm_mcp_approval

Confirm a pending MCP capability approval by spoken (or chat) yes/no. Pass approval_id from the approval_required tool result. decision: approve | reject | later. Runs the SAME process-approval pipeline as tapping Approve on the card — does not bypass integrity rails. Use on voice when the operator says approve/yes or reject/no after a capability ask. Do NOT invent an approval_id.

[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
`decision`	Yes	approve \| reject \| later (yes/no/go also accepted)
`companyId`	Yes	FreedomOS company id to act within (you must be a member). Required for company-scoped tools.
`grant_mode`	No	approve only: 'once' runs without standing grant (default for spoken path); 'standing' also grants future calls
`approval_id`	Yes	UUID of the pending mcp_tool_call approval card (from approval_required.approval_id)
`voice_session_id`	No	Optional voice session id if known (audit only)
`utterance_snippet`	No	Optional short quote of what the operator said (audit; ≤200 chars)

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 full burden. It discloses that the tool 'Runs the SAME process-approval pipeline as tapping Approve on the card — does not bypass integrity rails.' It also explains the write-tier and the effect of 'from-now-on' vs 'just-once' approvals, providing behavioral context beyond the basic operation.

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: two sentences plus a parenthetical note. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and usage, and each sentence provides essential information without redundancy. No wasted words.

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 confirmation tool with 6 parameters and no output schema, the description covers usage, behavioral transparency, and the write-tier note. It could detail error cases (e.g., invalid approval_id) or return behavior, but given the tool's simplicity, it is adequately complete.

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 the schema already documents all 6 parameters. The description adds value by explaining the relationship: 'Pass approval_id from the approval_required tool result' and clarifying the grant_mode options ('once' for one-time, 'standing' for future grants). This extra context helps the agent understand parameter usage beyond schema descriptions.

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's action: 'Confirm a pending MCP capability approval by spoken (or chat) yes/no.' It specifies the resource (MCP capability approval), the decision values, and the required approval_id. It differentiates from siblings by being the sole tool for approving MCP capabilities, distinct from other approval tools like 'approve_pipeline_item'.

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 explicit usage guidance: 'Use on voice when the operator says approve/yes or reject/no after a capability ask' and warns 'Do NOT invent an approval_id.' It also clarifies that it runs the same pipeline as tapping Approve on the card. However, it lacks explicit 'when not to use' scenarios.

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?