Skip to main content
Glama

freedom-mcp

by com.getfreedomos

create_key_result

Add a key result to an objective (the KR in OKR). Key results are measurable outcomes that track progress toward the objective. You can identify the parent objective by title or 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
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
unitNoUnit of measurement (e.g., "%", "$", "users", "trees")
monthNoYYYY-MM the current_value belongs to (default: this UTC month). Writes monthly_history. Pass 2026-06 to stamp June, not a Q4 pile.
titleYesKey result title (measurable outcome). Title, unit, and current must name the SAME quantity FO can see.
due_dateNoDue date (YYYY-MM-DD). Strongly recommended — a KR without one cannot expire or alarm.
companyIdYesFreedomOS company id to act within (you must be a member). Required for company-scoped tools.
assigned_toNoUser ID or "me"/"current_user" to assign to
descriptionNoWhat the number is (e.g. "This month cash in minus cash out"). Agents read this back on get_okrs — do not leave blank for cash KRs.
objective_idNoID of the parent objective (optional if using objective_title)
target_valueNoTarget value to achieve. 0 is a valid floor (breakeven / this month FCF ≥ $0). Omit only if you intend the default 100.
current_valueNoTHIS calendar month's actual (default: 0). Not YTD, not a future projection. For FCF use get_financial_summary displayed_net_cash_flow; for Amazon deposits use get_monthly_trends Amazon Sales. Do not invent Amazon GMV. Bind measure_source, or leave 0.
measure_sourceNoBind current progress to a live data source so it auto-updates daily instead of relying on manual edits. One of: stripe_active_subscribers (active paying Stripe subscriptions), stripe_mrr ($ MRR), crm_active_leads (active CRM leads). Use when the KR measures exactly what a source provides.
objective_titleNoTitle of the parent objective (use this or objective_id)

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 fully carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It usefully discloses the write-tier approval workflow, including how different approval types affect future calls. However, it does not describe return values, failure modes, or what side effects occur beyond creation.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core action, followed by a helpful definition and a clearly separated approval note. Every sentence earns its place with no repetition or filler.

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 12 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides only the essential workflow context and approval behavior. The detailed schema compensates for parameter semantics, but the description lacks information about expected return values and how this tool fits alongside generate_key_results or update_key_result.

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 schema already documents all 12 parameters thoroughly. The description adds only the general guidance that the parent objective can be identified by title or ID, which maps to objective_title and objective_id but does not meaningfully supplement the rich schema details.

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 specific action ('Add a key result to an objective') and defines what a key result is in OKR terms. It distinguishes this from related tools like create_objective by explicitly naming the parent relationship and allowing identification by title or ID.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool — when adding a KR to an existing objective — and provides guidance on how to reference the parent objective. It does not explicitly mention alternatives like generate_key_results or update_key_result, so it falls short of a full 5.

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