freedom-mcp

derive_capability

Scan the company's connected source code (its GitHub repo, via the Pulse connection in Smart Tools) and DRAFT a capability list — shipped FEATURES (each citing the file that proves it) plus attempted can't-do LIMITS — for the operator to ratify. It writes NOTHING: only items the operator ratifies become authoritative capability the marketing agents and the Integrity Gate use. Read-only; never executes or sends code. If no repo is connected it tells the operator to connect one in Pulse first. Use to populate or refresh a software product's capabilities without hand-maintaining them.

Routing: Operator wants to pull their product's real features from its code (instead of typing them) → use this

[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	Default
`companyId`	Yes	FreedomOS company id to act within (you must be a member). Required for company-scoped tools.

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It states 'Read-only; never executes or sends code', 'writes NOTHING', details the draft-then-ratify workflow, and explains the sensitive-tier approval process. This is comprehensive behavioral disclosure.

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?

Description is front-loaded with core functionality, followed by routing and approval notes. It could be slightly more concise, but the structure is logical and each part adds value. No redundant statements.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Despite no output schema, the description fully explains the tool's behavior: scanning code, drafting features with citations, limits, read-only, dependency on repo connection, and the ratification flow. It also covers the error case and authorization notes. Very complete for a tool of this complexity.

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?

Only one parameter 'companyId' with 100% schema description coverage. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema's existing description of the parameter. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema already documents it sufficiently.

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?

Description clearly states the tool scans source code and drafts a capability list of features with file citations and limits. It explicitly says 'read-only' and distinguishes itself from manual typing or website scraping via the routing condition. The purpose is specific and distinct from siblings like 'derive_from_website' and 'ratify_capability'.

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?

Description provides clear when-to-use guidance: 'Use to populate or refresh a software product's capabilities without hand-maintaining them' and a routing condition. It also mentions prerequisites (repo must be connected) and handles the case where it's not. However, it does not explicitly list alternatives or when not to use this tool.

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?